| remove   |
| runtime  | Implicit
| throw on | break and|
| missing  | multiple | Mandatory |
| default  | values   | default   |
+----------+----------+-----------+
|    M     |    M     |     N     | AS

In article <br5h0m$u59$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ant wrote:
> by multiple values I mean "case 1,3,43,19..23:"
> seems to me that you shouldn't have implicit break
> without multiple values.

This would seem reasonable.

-Antti

"Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:br7jm0

> to 0, let's see: 1.7 MHz, assuming a short branch takes 4 clock cycles...

Wow, your computer is ooooold! :)

(Sure you don't want to do s/M/G/g?)

Lars Ivar Igesund

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> "Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:br7jm0
> 
>>to 0, let's see: 1.7 MHz, assuming a short branch takes 4 clock cycles...

> Wow, your computer is ooooold! :)

GRRRRRRH! My computers are all under 700 MHz. My usual development can runs 233 MHz P-MMX.

Besides, some CPUs are faster than the others, specifically by a 1,5 times "fake boost" of Pentium 4. ;) This is also reflected in the marketing names of newer Athlon CPUs, though they actually run with relatively low frequencies.

Do you want to give us all some newer faster computers?

-eye

Ilya Minkov wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> 
>> "Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:br7jm0
>>
>>> to 0, let's see: 1.7 MHz, assuming a short branch takes 4 clock cycles...
> 
> 
>> Wow, your computer is ooooold! :)
> 
> 
> GRRRRRRH! My computers are all under 700 MHz. My usual development can runs 233 MHz P-MMX.

Let's see, I just retired a P-II 300 for a dual P-III 400.  Roughly the same.
I also have a laptop that runs at 1Ghz.  All in all, if you are running more
than that you probably aren't using it to its fullest potential.

M - must
D - desirable
W - who cares
N - NO

| remove   |
| runtime  | Implicit
| throw on | break and|
| missing  | multiple | Mandatory |
| default  | values   | default   |
+----------+----------+-----------+
| M - 7    | M - 5    | M - 3     | Total
| D - 1    | D - 5    | D - 2     |
| W - 1    | W - 0    | W - 1     |
| N - 1    | N - 0    | N - 4     |
+----------+----------+-----------+
|    M     |    D     |     W     | Ant
|    M     |    M     |     M     | MW
|    M     |    M     |     N     | JCC
|    M     |    D     |     M     | HD
|    W     |    M     |     N     | DL
|    N     |    D     |     N     | PD
|    M     |    D     |     D     | SP
|    M     |    D     |     M     | CS
|    D     |    M     |     D     | GW
|    M     |    M     |     N     | AS
+----------+----------+-----------+

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub@tiscali.de> wrote in message news:br9npm$1aeo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> > "Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:br7jm0
> >
> >>to 0, let's see: 1.7 MHz, assuming a short branch takes 4 clock
cycles...
>
> > Wow, your computer is ooooold! :)
>
> GRRRRRRH! My computers are all under 700 MHz. My usual development can runs 233 MHz P-MMX.

No reason to be angry. 233 MHz is still 150 times faster than 1.7MHz...

Lars Ivar Igesund

|    M    |    D    |     N     | bs

I should add a comment:

Of course this is not a democracy.
Of course if you want a perfect language
you need to design it your self.

Walter has a perfect language, we don't.

Mr. Bright, :)
joke or not,
democracy or not,
we do have close to 10/2
ratio against you idea...

Ant

M - must
D - desirable
W - who cares
N - NO

| remove   |
| runtime  | Implicit
| throw on | break and|
| missing  | multiple | Mandatory |
| default  | values   | default   |
+----------+----------+-----------+
| M - 8    | M - 5    | M - 3     | Total
| D - 1    | D - 6    | D - 2     |
| W - 1    | W - 0    | W - 1     |
| N - 1    | N - 0    | N - 5     |
+----------+----------+-----------+
|    M     |    D     |     W     | Ant
|    M     |    M     |     M     | MW
|    M     |    M     |     N     | JCC
|    M     |    D     |     M     | HD
|    W     |    M     |     N     | DL
|    N     |    D     |     N     | PD
|    M     |    D     |     D     | SP
|    M     |    D     |     M     | CS
|    D     |    M     |     D     | GW
|    M     |    M     |     N     | AS
|    M     |    D     |     N     | bs
+----------+----------+-----------+

|    N     |    D     |     N     | JA

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> No reason to be angry. 233 MHz is still 150 times faster than 1.7MHz...

Whoops! An oversight!!! LOLROTFL :D

My first computer was a speccy at 4 MHz. :) 1.7 MHz looks like a pocket calculator frequency.

sorry. :)

-eye