Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Unused OpCodes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:That's what I had planned (because didn't see the point in creating separate pages with redundant content anyway). They're isnamed anyway, because they're not only unused, but NOPs (which includes that they aren't used in the code because they have no function.) | :That's what I had planned (because didn't see the point in creating separate pages with redundant content anyway). They're isnamed anyway, because they're not only unused, but NOPs (which includes that they aren't used in the code because they have no function.) | ||
| − | I just didn't come around to do it yet. [[User:SteaVor|SteaVor]] 05:34, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT) | + | :I just didn't come around to do it yet. [[User:SteaVor|SteaVor]] 05:34, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 10:34, 29 July 2007
Can you not make separate pages for unused opcodes? It's kind of pointless to do that. Just a list would be fine.
- That's what I had planned (because didn't see the point in creating separate pages with redundant content anyway). They're isnamed anyway, because they're not only unused, but NOPs (which includes that they aren't used in the code because they have no function.)
- I just didn't come around to do it yet. SteaVor 05:34, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT)
