At 6:35 PM +0100 3/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we should limit the number of unique IDs available at runtime to 32.
We ought to limit it to 0, actually. :) These classifications are all
compile-time things as they affect the code the preprocessor
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I think we should limit the number of unique IDs available at runtime to 32.
> We ought to limit it to 0, actually. :) These classifications are all
> compile-time things as they affect the code the preprocessor emits.
And how do you handle PBCs then?
le
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 17:11, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 3:43 PM +0100 3/23/04, Jens Rieks wrote:
> >On Tuesday 23 March 2004 14:49, Gay, Jerry wrote:
> >> > - do we expect to have more then 32 different classes?
> >>
> >> i see 13 operator classes currently, though my tree may be out of date
> >
At 3:43 PM +0100 3/23/04, Jens Rieks wrote:
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 14:49, Gay, Jerry wrote:
> - do we expect to have more then 32 different classes?
i see 13 operator classes currently, though my tree may be out of date
I think we should limit the number of unique IDs available at runtime to 3
Hi,
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 14:49, Gay, Jerry wrote:
> > - do we expect to have more then 32 different classes?
>
> i see 13 operator classes currently, though my tree may be out of date
I think we should limit the number of unique IDs available at runtime to 32.
We can assign the same number to
