"Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |
Lars "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | |
Lars Lars Is the .str().c_str() trick needed anymore? It seems that
Lars we | Lars have just
I really think that declaring a stream and outputting to it just to
change an int to a string is overkill and not convenient.
Seconded. And a function could be used in more places that a block of three
lines. And it's easier readable, since it is shorter. And all the magic
necessary to support
>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
Lars> >>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | |
Lars> Lars> Is t
> I really think that declaring a stream and outputting to it just to
> change an int to a string is overkill and not convenient.
Seconded. And a function could be used in more places that a block of three
lines. And it's easier readable, since it is shorter. And all the magic
necessary to
"Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Is the .str().c_str() trick needed anymore? It seems that we
Lars have just plain .str() several places in the code and have not
Lars got any failure reports about this yet?
I get it to complain when compiling on cxx with
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| Lars Is the .str().c_str() trick needed anymore? It seems that we
| Lars have just plain .str() several places in the code and have not
| Lars got any failure reports abou
>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Is the .str().c_str() trick needed anymore? It seems that we
Lars> have just plain .str() several places in the code and have not
Lars> got any failure reports about this yet?
I
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> Is the .str().c_str() trick needed anymore? It seems that we
| Lars> have just plain .str() several places in the code and hav
"Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Is the .str().c_str() trick needed anymore? It seems that we
Lars have just plain .str() several places in the code and have not
Lars got any failure reports about this yet?
It seems that it is needed if we use
On 31-Oct-2000 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
I'll try as soon as I can compile again with xforsm 0.88 (waiting for
Juergen commit).
Ohh sorry to make you wait I'll commit my changes now!
Jürgen
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Dr. Jürgen
>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Is the .str().c_str() trick needed anymore? It seems that we
Lars> have just plain .str() several places in the code and have not
Lars> got any failure reports about this yet?
It seem
On 31-Oct-2000 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> I'll try as soon as I can compile again with xforsm 0.88 (waiting for
> Juergen commit).
>
Ohh sorry to make you wait I'll commit my changes now!
Jürgen
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Dr. Jürgen
Is the .str().c_str() trick needed anymore?
It seems that we have just plain .str() several places in the code and
have not got any failure reports about this yet?
Unless I get objections I will change .str().c_str() into just .str()
where approp. (if objections we should change .str() to str
Is the .str().c_str() trick needed anymore?
It seems that we have just plain .str() several places in the code and
have not got any failure reports about this yet?
Unless I get objections I will change .str().c_str() into just .str()
where approp. (if objections we should change .str() to str
14 matches
Mail list logo
