public-script-coord@w3.org from January to March 2014 by date

Wednesday, 26 March 2014

[Bug 25050] Should Constructors behave like operations or (attribute) setters? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 24 March 2014

[Bug 25138] "Invoking callback functions" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25138] "Invoking callback functions" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25138] New: "Invoking callback functions" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 20 March 2014

[Bug 24581] Fix ByteString type & [EnsureUTF16] flag story bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 14 March 2014

[Bug 25051] New: "The return type of the operation is given by th..." bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25050] Should Constructors behave like operations or (attribute) setters? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25050] Should Constructors behave like operations or (attribute) setters? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25050] Should Constructors behave like operations or (attribute) setters? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25050] New: "throw an exception" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25049] New: disallow nullable Promise<T> types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25048] New: consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

[Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25025] New: Named creators with [OverrideBuiltins] don't work right as the spec is written now bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25015] "asynchromous" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 25015] New: "asynchromous" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

[Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 6 March 2014

[Bug 24959] New: "Exposed=Window,Worker" will be parsed to 2 extended attributes bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
Re: Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value Boris Zbarsky
Re: Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value Allen Wirfs-Brock
Re: Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value Boris Zbarsky

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

RE: Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value Travis Leithead
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Boris Zbarsky
Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value Boris Zbarsky

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? Boris Zbarsky
Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? Allen Wirfs-Brock

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? Boris Zbarsky
Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? Mark S. Miller
Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? Allen Wirfs-Brock
Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? Allen Wirfs-Brock
Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? Mark S. Miller
Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? Allen Wirfs-Brock
Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? Boris Zbarsky

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" Domenic Denicola
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Jonas Sicking
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Allen Wirfs-Brock
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Brendan Eich
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Mark S. Miller
[Bug 21740] Guidance on DOMError and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" Domenic Denicola
RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" Jonas Sicking
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Brendan Eich
RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" Domenic Denicola
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Jonas Sicking
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Boris Zbarsky
RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" Domenic Denicola
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Boris Zbarsky
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Allen Wirfs-Brock
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Boris Zbarsky
Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" Mark S. Miller
Removing the concept of "optional any" Boris Zbarsky

Friday, 14 February 2014

Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Boris Zbarsky
Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Ian Hickson
Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Boris Zbarsky
Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Anne van Kesteren
Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Jonas Sicking
Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Ian Hickson
Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Tab Atkins Jr.
Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Boris Zbarsky
Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Ian Hickson

Thursday, 13 February 2014

[Bug 24652] Deal with associated Realms bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Boris Zbarsky
partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] Michael van Ouwerkerk
[Bug 24652] Deal with associated Realms bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24652] New: Deal with associated Realms bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 23367] Move exceptions into IDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20158] Unrestricted typed dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 12 February 2014

[Bug 17648] [Awaiting ES6] Add iterators bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 17648] [Awaiting ES6] Add iterators bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Re: FYI: Navigation Error Logging Anne van Kesteren
FYI: Navigation Error Logging Philippe Le Hegaret
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 10 February 2014

[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
Re: Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics Mark S. Miller
Re: Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics David Bruant
Re: Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics Boris Zbarsky
Re: Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics Tom Van Cutsem

Saturday, 8 February 2014

Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics David Bruant
[Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 7 February 2014

[Bug 24581] New: Fix ByteString type & [EnsureUTF16] flag story bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24580] New: "Let cast be the original value of %Promise%.cast. " bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 6 February 2014

[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 3 February 2014

[Bug 23367] Move exceptions into IDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 18362] Make stringifiers not take into account expandos bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 30 January 2014

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22858] use @@hasInstance instead of [[HasInstance]] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 28 January 2014

[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 21422] Generic Promise type notation bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24418] "langauge" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24418] New: "langauge" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 21740] Guidance on DOMError and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24417] [Exposed] on an interface that is "implements"ed into another should mean something bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24417] New: [Exposed] on an interface that is "implements"ed into another should mean something bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 27 January 2014

[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 23277] Broken references to EcmaScript spec bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
Re: [WebIDL] Would it make sense to add annotations for "creates a new object each time" and "always returns the same object"? Cameron McCormack
[Bug 17648] [Awaiting ES6] Add iterators bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22912] fix [[Delete]] due to how it's changed in ES6 bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22507] Need to define behaviour for setting properties on named properties objects bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24413] New: consider adding Interface.isInterface() functions bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24412] consider throwing RangeError instead of TypeError for invalid enum values bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24412] New: consider throwing RangeError instead of TypeError for invalid enum values bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type? Cameron McCormack
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22691] Remove ByteString from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20458] 4.2.22: converting IDL value to IDL type? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24403] New: WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Sunday, 26 January 2014

[Bug 23266] ExtendedAttributeTypePair grammar appears wrong bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 23087] Undefined variable use in the overload resolution algorithm bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22358] Add a "this is the global" annotation bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Saturday, 25 January 2014

[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 24 January 2014

[Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22874] #es-stringifier algorithm shouldn't use ToString(V) bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22874] #es-stringifier algorithm shouldn't use ToString(V) bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 23 January 2014

[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 20 January 2014

Re: [whatwg] Date Update? Norbert Lindenberg

Sunday, 19 January 2014

Re: [whatwg] Date Update? Jasper St. Pierre
Re: [whatwg] Date Update? Rick Waldron
Date Update? Garrett Smith

Friday, 17 January 2014

Thursday, 16 January 2014

[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 15 January 2014

[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 14 January 2014

[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24291] New: Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 13 January 2014

Re: Typeconverting Exotics Brendan Eich
Re: Typeconverting Exotics Boris Zbarsky

Sunday, 12 January 2014

Re: Typeconverting Exotics Allen Wirfs-Brock
Re: Typeconverting Exotics Mark S. Miller
Re: Typeconverting Exotics Boris Zbarsky
Typeconverting Exotics Garrett Smith

Friday, 10 January 2014

[Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 23701] Remove TreatUndefinedAs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other Boris Zbarsky
[Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 9 January 2014

Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other Boris Zbarsky
Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other Erik Arvidsson
Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other Boris Zbarsky
Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other Erik Arvidsson
Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other Boris Zbarsky
Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other Erik Arvidsson
[Bug 24248] New: Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 8 January 2014

[Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
[Bug 24241] New: Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
Re: Enforcing (unsigned) long long ranges Mark S. Miller
Re: Enforcing (unsigned) long long ranges Mark S. Miller
Enforcing (unsigned) long long ranges Sigbjorn Finne

Last message date: Wednesday, 26 March 2014 05:08:49 UTC