| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 20:38 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 08:31 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Every file which comes from Sicromoft (R) Wondies (TM) has execute |
| 4 |
> > permission set. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > That's not an error. Due to Sicromoft this is a FEATURE ;-))) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That would be an explanation if all the files in the tarball had their |
| 9 |
> execute bit set, but they don't! |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> never mind, we will whip these laby guys into decent gentoo shape LOL. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> -- |
| 14 |
> Nick Rout <nick@×××××××.nz> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I got the tarball too meanwhile ... and Purebasic itself to have some |
| 18 |
docs about that language. |
| 19 |
The source isn't that big. Due to the clean structure of the sources |
| 20 |
simply converting the BASIC syntax to a more *NIX like language |
| 21 |
shouldn't be a that big task too. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I didn't look at the platforms Purebasic runs on but for these variables |
| 24 |
'name.?' the '?' is a character defining the number of bytes the |
| 25 |
variable occupies. |
| 26 |
I don't have a clue how PB handles byte order ... not to mention 64 bit |
| 27 |
systems. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If we help such guys into the FSF world we should wonder about |
| 30 |
portability too, shouldn't we? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
.02$ |
| 33 |
Frank |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives