Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2012
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 03:20:21PM -0700, Reverend Chip wrote: > On 6/19/2012 3:16 PM, bulk 88 wrote: > >> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:59:14 -0700 > >> From: rev.chip@gmail.com > >> To: bulk88@hotmail.com > >> CC: perl5-porters@perl.org > >> Subject: Re: Time for a 64-bit perl API? > >>> I dont see a cast in that macro, do you? > >> I don't see "unsigned" in those types, do you? > >> > > You haven't answered my question. > > Ah well. Fun's fun, but I'm going to stop playing with my food. No > more followups to p5p. Your bozo bit has been set. > > Meanwhile, if you would like to learn a lesson from your exile, please > look back in the thread and notice what I wrote: > > "An error value for an unsigned type, in a properly portable program > like Perl, would be ~(type)0 or (type)-1, not bare -1." > > Your finding error values for *signed* types as rebuttals was therefore > amusingly irrelevant, and your inability to correct your own error is, > frankly, sad. There is really no need for this level of hostility. He was asking a simple question, and a person being confused does not make it okay for people to just berate them until they understand (not to mention that it's really not very effective either). If you are tired of answering the question, you're free to stop responding, but it'd really be nice if people wouldn't immediately jump to insults and condescension. -doyThread Previous