Back to the month index |
Back to the list index
|
David J. Hughes (bambi@Hughes.com.au)
Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:36:21 +1000 (EST)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: Corey Sanders: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- Previous message: Corey Sanders: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- In reply to: David J. Hughes: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- Next in thread: Corey Sanders: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- Reply: Corey Sanders: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- Reply: Jean-Oliver Holingue: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:36:21 +1000 (EST) From: "David J. Hughes" <bambi@Hughes.com.au> Subject: Re: Lite / Form Question Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990407133504.518M-100000@fawn.hughes.com.au>
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Corey Sanders wrote:
> What you've presented here is wonderful. Let me be the first to give it
> full support. I hadn't considered adding the derefernce aspect. It is a
> nice way of handling the possible memory issue I brought up.
Sounds good. We'll keep it on the list.
> While your adding things, is there any possibility of adding a defined
> operator/function?
Sure, why not. A simple hook into the symtab code will not be a problem.
If there are other things that people would like to see in the core Lite
language then please speak up. 2.1 is the perfect chance to get major
changes into the code-base.
Bambi
...
- Next message: Corey Sanders: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- Previous message: Corey Sanders: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- In reply to: David J. Hughes: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- Next in thread: Corey Sanders: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- Reply: Corey Sanders: "Re: Lite / Form Question"
- Reply: Jean-Oliver Holingue: "Re: Lite / Form Question"