|
Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Ben Goetter
(13 Apr 2006 17:54 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
John Cowan
(13 Apr 2006 18:04 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Marc Feeley
(13 Apr 2006 21:41 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
John Cowan
(14 Apr 2006 12:49 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Marc Feeley
(14 Apr 2006 13:37 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Marc Feeley
(13 Apr 2006 22:03 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Ben Goetter (14 Apr 2006 01:02 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Marc Feeley
(14 Apr 2006 01:52 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(24 May 2006 16:26 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
John Cowan
(24 May 2006 17:18 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Marc Feeley
(24 May 2006 18:11 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
John Cowan
(24 May 2006 16:06 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(24 May 2006 16:17 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
John Cowan
(14 Apr 2006 12:26 UTC)
|
||
Marc Feeley wrote: > After rereading this part of your message I think I may have > misunderstood you. Do you mean that the procedure's signatures should > explicit the type of port to indicate the type constraints? That's right. I'm also arguing for separate procedures for opening a byte port vs a char port.
