>"rough" is one way to express it, "not doing at all what you think" would be another :-)
OK, fair enough. It was a short way to describe what I wanted but even the compiler warned me it wasn't doing what I wanted. The hack was just to force that line to evaluate to false and try the rest of the patch (which failed, so that seems to be my bigger issue). So I thought to solve that parsing issue another day :)
> Basically the unsigned int version should just be a subset of the ull, with the min/max settings things would just work out nicely.
So the idea is to share the same case statement for both, not introduce unique case statements for UL and ULL, right?
Regards,
Jeff
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�������^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
