Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/02/06/03:42:51
On 5 Feb 1997 08:13:40 GMT, afn03257 AT freenet2 DOT afn DOT org (Daniel P Hudson) wrote:
>billlanam AT california DOT com (Bill Lanam) wrote:
>>On 3 Feb 1997 00:50:13 GMT, afn03257 AT freenet2 DOT afn DOT org (Daniel P Hudson)
>wrote:
>
>>No it is an extremely useful feature, for example lets say you change
>
>I'm sorry, and I'm leaving this group. Mr DS's misinterpretation of my
>statements and utter lack of a real point was bad enough. Coupled
>with his childish retaliation about reading and not doing when I stated
>I did both, put me on the edge. Now you want to tell me a DOCUMENTED BUG
>is NOT a BUG but a rather a feature? No wonder, DS took my statement
>about Bugs offensively. You prefer to make a useful excause for them and
>call them features. If I ever make such a statement again, I will be
>sure to say, GCC w/DJGPP has as many features as Borland does Bugs.
>Well that's enough of this fantacism for me. DJGPP will stay on my
>HD, but I'll be reading gnu.gcc.bug where bugs are indeed considered
>bugs.
>
>Good day.
1) Please don't waste your time with insults they don't accomplish anything
useful, I know that because I also used to insult people, didn't like the
results so I no longer do so anymore.
2) I really should have explained what I meant much better, you see there is a
big difference between the preprocessor and the compiler, it is the compiler's
job to do syntax checking not the preprocessor, to the preprocessor '.x' means
that 'x' is a member of a struct or class or union with absolutely no concern as
whether there is any variables on the left of the '.', then the preprocessor
checks whether it should substitute something for the 'x' if so then it does so
regardless of what the substitution is. If there is any problems the compiler
will catch it when it does syntax checking.
Bill Lanam
- Raw text -