Re: Mistaken change in GCC (fwd)

["James Buchanan" <jamesb at northnet dot com dot au>]

On 23 Nov 00, at 22:50, Phil Edwards wrote:

> 
> IIRC, early versions would exec 'nethack' when they saw a code
> construct that the then-maintainers didn't like.

What does IIRC mean?

> I am confident that future versions of gcc will eventually be able to
> read email and browse the web.  (Now /there/'s an Extension From Hell
> -- point wwwgcc at a web page containing source code, and the code
> will be automatically compiled and left in a temporary directory...)

Now don't give me any ideas here....

> > By the way, I was thinking of a new front end to gcc.... Visual
> > Basic!!!!!
> 
> Why not?  Large chunks of runtime issues are already handled by
> cygwin.
> 
> >Ha ha ha, just kidding!
> 
> I'm not.

Ha, I don't have anywhere near the skill to build a VB runtime 
environment for gcc, I suppose if I did I might well have done it... I 
have started building a mod_basic for apache, but in fact someone 
else was doing it and our projects look set to merge.
> Phil
> 
> -- 
> pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot
> com devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot
> domains The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more
> capable fools.
>