In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 05:22:11PM +, Wez Furlong wrote:
> Please coordinate with me on streams issues; if some 64bit oses
> declare descriptors as longs rather than ints, then we could have a
> bigger job on our hands (similar to the mess with socket types under
>
> Which part of "please coordinate with me on streams issues" didn't you
> get? ;-)
>
> If there are long vs int issues in streams, please let me know where
> they are and I will fix it.
>
> Thanks :)
Forgive me if I am a bit dense tonight :-) My 15 yr old son is having a lan
party in the baseme
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, David Hill wrote:
> > Please coordinate with me on streams issues; if some 64bit oses declare
> > descriptors as longs rather than ints, then we could have a bigger job
> > on our hands (similar to the mess with socket types under win32).
>
> Tru64 & HP-UX (and I would guess S
> Please coordinate with me on streams issues; if some 64bit oses declare
> descriptors as longs rather than ints, then we could have a bigger job
> on our hands (similar to the mess with socket types under win32).
Tru64 & HP-UX (and I would guess Solaris and the rest) - the descriptor is
an in
> CRIPES, people! I posted patches in November 2002 (admittedly, it was a
> large patch and probably no one got to check it all out). Then, I
> reposted them (and sent then directly to you, Dave!) a few days ago.
And I got all but the three files merged that are probably causing his
problem too -
Please coordinate with me on streams issues; if some 64bit oses declare
descriptors as longs rather than ints, then we could have a bigger job
on our hands (similar to the mess with socket types under win32).
--Wez.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, David Hill wrote:
> > CRIPES, people! I posted patches in N
> CRIPES, people! I posted patches in November 2002 (admittedly, it was a
> large patch and probably no one got to check it all out). Then, I
> reposted them (and sent then directly to you, Dave!) a few days ago.
And I got all but the three files merged that are probably causing his
problem too -
> -Original Message-
> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 March 2003 14:50
>
> You are right that it doesn't behave the same as C. However,
> personally
> although it might have been better for it to work like C I
> don't think it's
> a good idea to change it now.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>You are right that it doesn't behave the same as C. However, personally
>although it might have been better for it to work like C I don't think it's
>a good idea to change it now. First of all it would break backwards
>compatibility in a way which would
You are right that it doesn't behave the same as C. However, personally
although it might have been better for it to work like C I don't think it's
a good idea to change it now. First of all it would break backwards
compatibility in a way which would be hard for people to find where the bug
is
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 March 2003 19:33
> To: Ford, Mike [LSS]
> Cc: 'Andrey Hristov'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Possible problem in the parser
>
>
> At 14:58 13.03.2003, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
