On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Or should we get rid of the 20-bit "break" completely? The two-argument > > version provides the same functionality, although the 10-bit codes to be > > used do not map to the 20-bit equivalent "optically" very well. > > Especially if decimal notation is used. > > I notice no-one's really responded to this question yet. FWIW, on gut > instinct, I'd personally prefer to drop the 20-bit break than introduce > a new, non-standard name for it. Well, this is essentially what the patch does. Or do you mean: "drop it and if anyone screams, consider an alternative?" I'd find it acceptable, actually, but it's not my opinion that really matters here. -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, PGP key available +
