Attached example CPP files makes it easier to post code and extract code
from posts. It's unimaginable at this time where virtually any news
reader is capable of dealing with attachments to stick with such old
antiquated rules.
It's time for a change. I reccomend that the faq-5.4 bullet be changed: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.4
from:
Do not post "attachments."
to:
Attachments of small files of code to allow for easy addition and
extraction is recommended as an alternative of posting files in-line.
Any attached files should remain small and essentially form part of the
context of the question.
.....
Anyone disagree ?
Jun 5 '07
130  3213 
In article <4668f81a$0$22405$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
Jerry Coffin wrote:
....
Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at.
Would you like to see some form of improvement, even if it means
changing the definition of what attachment means ?
I'm fine with improvement -- but your first step is to show that it
really _is_ an improvement. If you want to do that, you need to find
some new arguments, as your current arguments have clearly failed.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Andre Kostur <nn******@kostur.netwrote:
Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wswrote in
news:46***********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>Jerry Coffin wrote:
>>Then the problem has to be diagnosed while viewing the code
separately from the question about the code. Finally, when the
problem is diagnosed, we still have to do the cut-n-paste you seem to
dislike so intensely to produce a post that interleaves the pertinent
line or two of code with explanation of what was wrong, how to fix
it, etc.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....21d17f4?&hl=en
Try reply.
For those not using Google Groups, the above message has message ID:
<46**********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
(As mentioned in a different post) You're assuming that everyone is using
a web-based newsreader (or perhaps Google Groups specifically). What
about everyone else who may prefer to use nn, tin, or some other
newsreader?
I use tin to read news, and I found that for the above message, it did
put the attachment inline, as well as placing it inline when I hit the
"Followup" key.
However, my personal preference is for no attachments, since I think it
would be too inviting for people to start posting binaries.
--
Marcus Kwok
Replace 'invalid' with 'net' to reply
stan wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>Jerry Coffin wrote:
....
>>>Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at.
Would you like to see some form of improvement, even if it means
changing the definition of what attachment means ?
You seem to be missing the point that you have failed to convince anyone
that what you propose IS an improvement.
Read my last question as an open question about any improvement. I'm
not trying to convince anyone of any particular improvement at this
point, just trying to see if there are any other ideas.
... As you already mentioned,
change != progress/improvement. USENET has been around awhile
now and the accepted rules are pretty much the result of eliminating
things thta didn't work well.
I have tried attachments and inline and I prefer inline. I guess in your
view that makes me luddite.
Did you try the link I posted N times in this thread ? I'm still not
sure if anyone tried the "reply" link.
... Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm
very familiar with the technology, I've used both, and I've arrived at
my own informed choice.
Cool. What were your decision factors ?
>
If you really feel that your way is better, why not just join the alt
side of the house and create a newsgroup, or try and start another group
similar to the binaries that embrace attachments?
I'll pile it onto my tower of things to do.
>
The value of any newsgroup is largely in the quality of the information
which is proportional to the work volunteered by the regulars. Seems
most of the regulars here have pretty clearly stated that they consider
attachments to required more work for them. It takes time to participate
in a newsgroup regularly and your burden is to show attachments can be
used in a way that requires no more work/time than is currently required
and is as safe as the inline technique.
It's kind of hard to do that if you don't try it first.
>
Your proprosal requires (some) administrators to change to allow
attachments, requires many to change newsreaders, and requires new
technology that could ensure that handles attachments in a provably safe
way.
Yes. You can't make all those changes happen at once. There has to be
a first step.
>
I may be presuming here but your chief problem seems to be that some
code can't be easily cut and pasted in a manner that allows you to
compile the code.
That and it's plain tedious to cut-n-paste etc etc.
... IF that is in fact correct, maybe you would be better
served by learning better ways to deal with text. The UNIX based command
line stuff can do magic in the hands of a skilled artisan.
Ideally I would like a "compile selected" function but too often the
text is jumbled. Attaching a file avoids the text formatting on many
news clients. The real goal here is that posters will take the time to
distill their posts and compile it before posting to that it clearly
demonstrates the problem they are having. More often than not my
response is "come back with a chunk-o-code that generates the error
messages that you said it generates."
No unix command can fix some of the code I see.
... Or, possibly
you need a better editor.
Sure - what do you think ?
... IF you don't succeed in changing c.l.c++ maybe
you could spend some time sollving your own problem. Just a thought.
It's a garbage-in-grabage-out problem. I'm trying to clean up the
garbage in.
Marcus Kwok wrote:
....
I use tin to read news, and I found that for the above message, it did
put the attachment inline, as well as placing it inline when I hit the
"Followup" key.
However, my personal preference is for no attachments, since I think it
would be too inviting for people to start posting binaries.
Wonderful. Thanks for trying.
Is that your only objection then to attachments ?
Jerry Coffin wrote:
In article <4668f81a$0$22405$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
>Jerry Coffin wrote:
....
>>>Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at.
Would you like to see some form of improvement, even if it means
changing the definition of what attachment means ?
I'm fine with improvement -- but your first step is to show that it
really _is_ an improvement. If you want to do that, you need to find
some new arguments, as your current arguments have clearly failed.
Sorry, but did you actually try to validate your issues with the proposal ?
Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wswrote:
Marcus Kwok wrote:
...
>I use tin to read news, and I found that for the above message, it did
put the attachment inline, as well as placing it inline when I hit the
"Followup" key.
However, my personal preference is for no attachments, since I think it
would be too inviting for people to start posting binaries.
Wonderful. Thanks for trying.
Is that your only objection then to attachments ?
Yes, plus the related issue that if people start posting binaries to the
group, then the newsserver I use will be forced to reduce the post
retention period due to space issues (that is why my newsserver does not
carry alt.* newsgroups, and thus I don't read
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++).
However, if attachments were somehow restricted only to plain-text
attachments, then I personally would have no problems with it (assuming
people still make the effort to distill their code into a minimal
example). On my end, plain-text attachments incur no extra effort on my
part. However, binaries (including .zip files containing an entire
project's worth of code) should be rejected.
--
Marcus Kwok
Replace 'invalid' with 'net' to reply ri******@gehennom.invalid (Marcus Kwok) writes:
For those not using Google Groups, the above message has message ID:
<46**********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
>(As mentioned in a different post) You're assuming that everyone is using
a web-based newsreader (or perhaps Google Groups specifically). What
about everyone else who may prefer to use nn, tin, or some other
newsreader?
I use tin to read news, and I found that for the above message, it did
put the attachment inline, as well as placing it inline when I hit the
"Followup" key.
Same here. It looks to me like GG is treating certain file types that way,
placing them inline instead of actually posting them as attachments when
the message is sent.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wswrote in
news:46***********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
Andre Kostur wrote:
>Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wswrote in news:4668a37c$0$22417
$5*******@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>>Andre Kostur wrote:
Gianni Mariani <gi*******@mariani.wswrote in
news:46688b7b$0$22416$5*******@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>>>If the code is in an attachment, then that is what one has to do.
If you use an outdated new reader.
Depends on your definition of "outdated news reader". Mine reads
news perfectly fine.
You've got a luddite newsreader then ... :-)
There will be some newsreaders that don't handle attachments the way
they should be handled. However, if we all have to wait for
everyone's news reader to do the right thing nothing will ever
improve.
And there's the disjoint in opinion. In my opinion, the attachments _are_
being handled in an appropriate manner. If whatever text is intended to be
viewed as part of the article, then it should be _in_ the article, not
attached to it,
And on certain platforms, the auto-opening of attachments has been an
attack vector for virii...
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>
Did you try the link I posted N times in this thread ? I'm still not
sure if anyone tried the "reply" link.
Yeah, but it didn't open in my newsreader, it opened in my browser.
Unfortunately, I don't read news in my browser.
Gianni Mariani wrote:
stan wrote:
>Gianni Mariani wrote:
<question snipped>
>You seem to be missing the point that you have failed to convince anyone
that what you propose IS an improvement.
Read my last question as an open question about any improvement. I'm
not trying to convince anyone of any particular improvement at this
point, just trying to see if there are any other ideas.
My training says that to facilitate a change, you must first ensure
there is a perceived need for change.
Did you try the link I posted N times in this thread ? I'm still not
sure if anyone tried the "reply" link.
Yes, Google groups is not an acceptable tool. If your point is that
other readers could work that way, then why not go evangelize the people
that maintain and develop newsreaders.
Cool. What were your decision factors ?
Factors include but not limited to:
Google won't do offline reading.
Attachments are inherently risky.
>The value of any newsgroup is largely in the quality of the information
which is proportional to the work volunteered by the regulars. Seems
most of the regulars here have pretty clearly stated that they consider
attachments to required more work for them. It takes time to participate
in a newsgroup regularly and your burden is to show attachments can be
used in a way that requires no more work/time than is currently required
and is as safe as the inline technique.
It's kind of hard to do that if you don't try it first.
As noted, I tried your link and I don't like it. It doesn't meet my
needs.
>Your proprosal requires (some) administrators to change to allow
attachments, requires many to change newsreaders, and requires new
technology that could ensure that handles attachments in a provably safe
way.
Yes. You can't make all those changes happen at once. There has to be
a first step.
Then you should probably start with the nntp administrators. Until they
generally allow attachments your "improvement" is a moot point. Until
you can propose a way to make attachments safe and require no additional
resources on servers, I'll remain skeptical that your idea is even
feasible.
>... IF that is in fact correct, maybe you would be better
served by learning better ways to deal with text. The UNIX based command
line stuff can do magic in the hands of a skilled artisan.
Ideally I would like a "compile selected" function but too often the
text is jumbled. Attaching a file avoids the text formatting on many
news clients. The real goal here is that posters will take the time to
distill their posts and compile it before posting to that it clearly
demonstrates the problem they are having. More often than not my
response is "come back with a chunk-o-code that generates the error
messages that you said it generates."
Seems like two different issues. One is the formatting related problems
and the other is the lack of ability/willingness of posters to do the
work to generate a well formed test case/illustration.
I have yet to see a convincing argument that attachments will do
anything to change the ability/willingness to generate a well formed
test case/illustration. IMHO I would expect to see the problem get worse
as the lazy or ignorant will simply attach whole programs and projects
as there would be no incentive to condense the source. In any case,
speculation seems unconvincing.
A more proactive approach might be to develop guidelines as to exactly
what constitutes a well formed test case/illustration and possibly some
tips or heuristics. I haven't looked for any such thing and I'm unaware
of any. Should you choose to draft such a document, please don't post it
as an attachment :0 :)
No unix command can fix some of the code I see.
I concede that no single command could work all the time, I have yet to
see a case where the tools fail.
>... O possibly
you need a better editor.
Sure - what do you think ?
Editors are a matter of religion. I personally use both emacs and vim. I
would consider the ability to program and extend the editor a non
negotiable point. To avert any flames, I willingly admit that there are
many wonderful editors other than emacs and vim.
>... IF you don't succeed in changing c.l.c++ maybe
you could spend some time sollving your own problem. Just a thought.
It's a garbage-in-grabage-out problem. I'm trying to clean up the
garbage in.
I don't mean to quibble, but it seems like all your idea does is move
the location of the garbage chute; it will have no positive impact on
the quality or quantity of the contents.
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Default User wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
...
Why would I need to have tried it recently? Is it different?
Certainly nothing you've posted sounds like an improvement.
Try it and see. I did, why don't you ?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9a21d17f4?&hl=
en
What does some Google post have to do with anything?
Brian
Default User wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>Default User wrote:
>>Gianni Mariani wrote:
...
>>Why would I need to have tried it recently? Is it different?
Certainly nothing you've posted sounds like an improvement.
Try it and see. I did, why don't you ?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9a21d17f4?&hl=
en
What does some Google post have to do with anything?
Many of the objections about inlining are unfounded. It turns out that
at least 3 newsreaders that I know of now will inline attached plain
text files when following up.
See, you refuse to try, to be informed, make assumptions which are not
valid etc etc. You'd rather waste my time instead.
In article <466962b0$0$22405$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
Jerry Coffin wrote:
In article <4668f81a$0$22405$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
Jerry Coffin wrote:
....
Is there any room for wiggle here - no attachments ever ?
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at.
Would you like to see some form of improvement, even if it means
changing the definition of what attachment means ?
I'm fine with improvement -- but your first step is to show that it
really _is_ an improvement. If you want to do that, you need to find
some new arguments, as your current arguments have clearly failed.
Sorry, but did you actually try to validate your issues with the proposal ?
I not only tried to, but DID validate them. You've apparently given up
on actually even bothering to read the objections, since you've made
absolutely no real attempt at providing any mitigation for even one of
them.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Many of the objections about inlining are unfounded. It turns out
that at least 3 newsreaders that I know of now will inline attached
plain text files when following up.
So what? Many others don't. Are we supposed to switch to please you? I
think not.
See, you refuse to try
Try WHAT? I've tried Google, it sucks.
Brian
Jerry Coffin wrote:
....
I not only tried to, but DID validate them.
What did you do and what are your current set of objections.
The only potentially (I have some dount) one is that it may somehow
encourage posters to not distill their code. I don't think that
particular problem will be any different than it is today.
... You've apparently given up
on actually even bothering to read the objections, since you've made
absolutely no real attempt at providing any mitigation for even one of
them.
a) Your news-reader does not inline plat text attachments - well so get
one that does. At least three different news readers do at this point.
b) You have fear, uncertainty and doubt as to the security of plain text
attachments. Get over your fear, make certain there is no doubt.
c) The infrastructure has been tuned to disallow attachments and work
will need to be done. Well DUH.
Anything else I missed ?
Default User wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>Many of the objections about inlining are unfounded. It turns out
that at least 3 newsreaders that I know of now will inline attached
plain text files when following up.
So what? Many others don't. Are we supposed to switch to please you? I
think not.
>See, you refuse to try
Try WHAT? I've tried Google, it sucks.
Can you see now why I think your position is more of that of a luddite ?
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Default User wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Many of the objections about inlining are unfounded. It turns out
that at least 3 newsreaders that I know of now will inline
attached plain text files when following up.
So what? Many others don't. Are we supposed to switch to please
you? I think not.
See, you refuse to try
Try WHAT? I've tried Google, it sucks.
Can you see now why I think your position is more of that of a
luddite ?
No. In fact, I become increasingly baffled as to what your position is.
What does Google have to do with it? You don't use it.
Brian
Default User wrote:
....
No. In fact, I become increasingly baffled as to what your position is.
You have 3 choices. 1. Think that I'm a flaming fruitcake and stop
wasting your time and give up replying to me. 2. Think that I'm not
such a fruitcake and try to figure out what I mean because I've said
just about everything I'm going to say. 3. Think that it's just not
worth the effort and notch this up as a point at which two reasonable
people agree to disagree and move on.
What does Google have to do with it? ...
Try it and you will see. You don't have to adopt google news but humor
me and go ahead and try the link - press reply - see what happens. If
it does exactly what you expect it to do then you may need to explain
your earlier objections (I'm not sure if you stated relevant objections
as there have been too many for me to attribute accurately without going
back on all those messages and I'm not feeling up to doing that at this
point or maybe ever since IDGAFF at this point.). If it does not do
what you expect it to do, then you may want to revisit your earlier
objections.
... You don't use it.
a) Says who ?
b) So what ?
Good luck.
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Default User wrote:
...
No. In fact, I become increasingly baffled as to what your position
is.
You have 3 choices. 1. Think that I'm a flaming fruitcake and stop
wasting your time and give up replying to me.
Very attractive. Your arguments so far have mostly been insults or
complete non sequiturs.
2. Think that I'm not
such a fruitcake and try to figure out what I mean because I've said
just about everything I'm going to say.
Yet you keep talking.
3. Think that it's just not
worth the effort and notch this up as a point at which two reasonable
people agree to disagree and move on.
Unfortunately, I don't believe you've been reasonable since, oh, about
person 10 disagreed with you.
What does Google have to do with it? ...
Try it and you will see.
No. If your point is that Google can treat a text attachment as if it
were inline, so what? If not, then say what you mean.
Brian
Default User wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>Default User wrote:
...
>>No. In fact, I become increasingly baffled as to what your position
is.
You have 3 choices. 1. Think that I'm a flaming fruitcake and stop
wasting your time and give up replying to me.
Very attractive. Your arguments so far have mostly been insults or
complete non sequiturs.
I don't think the evidence supports your argument. You've made an
assertion here that my arguments have been "MOSTLY INSULTS" and "NON
SEQUITORS". The evidence should be abundant and clear, please help me
by accurately listing your evidence with supporting commentary otherwise
I can only assume your comment applies more to you than it does to I.
>
>2. Think that I'm not
such a fruitcake and try to figure out what I mean because I've said
just about everything I'm going to say.
Yet you keep talking.
I can say the same thing in many different ways. I assume by your
response you though I was saying I was not going to write much more.
All I meant to say is that that you can read everything that I'm going
to say about this topic already or you can make logical inferences to them.
>
>3. Think that it's just not
worth the effort and notch this up as a point at which two reasonable
people agree to disagree and move on.
Unfortunately, I don't believe you've been reasonable since, oh, about
person 10 disagreed with you.
Fair enough. Prove that I have been unreasonable in this thread. Cite
word for word, issue by issue that would make you come to believe that I
have been unreasonable. You can make the assumption that upon
reflection the only issue you may raise is my luddite comment which was
more in jest and directed more at the position than at James himself.
>
>>What does Google have to do with it? ...
Try it and you will see.
No.
I take it you think that it's an unreasonable request. I think there's a
clear point where someone is being unreasonable, I don't think it's me.
... If your point is that Google can treat a text attachment as if it
were inline, so what?
Very cool. Humor me once more and try to join the dots from here and
now come up with your list of objections to the original proposition.
Reflect on them just a little ask are they truly reasonable.
I'll give you a hint, objecttions that are catch 22 are unresonable.
"My news server does not support attachments" IS unreasonable. News
servers can and so support attachments and it is only when the group
decides to change its policies that the administrators will change
theirs, not the other way around.
This is what I think a reasonable person in your position would do.
I've already answered every objection and have agreed that there is an
unknown effect on only one. All other objections are a form of the
catch 22 which are simply cop-outs.
Oh, another form of what I think are unreasonable objections are the
ones that are like "I simply don't care enough to want to improve" which
I think should disqualify them from a vote anyway. At a guess, again
without verifying the accuracy, I suspect that was the majority objection.
In article <466a30fd$0$22434$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, gi*******@mariani.ws says...
Jerry Coffin wrote:
...
I not only tried to, but DID validate them.
What did you do and what are your current set of objections.
It's clearly pointless to continue the thread when you refuse to even
bother reading what I've said.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Jerry Coffin wrote:
....
It's clearly pointless to continue the thread when you refuse to even
bother reading what I've said.
Given that there has been alot of discussion here, and some objections
have been less founded than others, I don't know what they are any more.
It's not that I'm not bothered rather I no longer am sure.
Oh, as I mentioned to Brian, try to keep any "catch 22" or "I could not
be bothered" types of objections to yourself. I don't think they
qualify as you can probably figure out why.
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Default User wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
What does Google have to do with it? ...
Try it and you will see.
No.
I take it you think that it's an unreasonable request. I think
there's a clear point where someone is being unreasonable, I don't
think it's me.
Wow, what an ego. If I don't go look at a Google link to try and find
some meaning that you are too coy to state, I'm unreasonable?
... If your point is that Google can treat a text attachment as if
it were inline, so what?
Very cool. Humor me once more and try to join the dots from here and
now come up with your list of objections to the original proposition.
Reflect on them just a little ask are they truly reasonable.
The list of objections has been stated repeatedly.
I'll give you a hint, objecttions that are catch 22 are unresonable.
"My news server does not support attachments" IS unreasonable. News
servers can and so support attachments and it is only when the group
decides to change its policies that the administrators will change
theirs, not the other way around.
Nonsense. Oh, a news service might do so if there were an overwhelming
demand. This would not constitute it.
This is what I think a reasonable person in your position would do.
Perhaps, IF I THOUGHT IT WERE A GOOD THING! Attachments are
objectionable for many reasons beyond that fact that
I've already answered every objection and have agreed that there is
an unknown effect on only one. All other objections are a form of
the catch 22 which are simply cop-outs.
You have answered most of them by calling the person a luddite. That is
not an answer. You've become completely irrational. When you post a
suggestion to a group as large and diverse as this one, and NO ONE
supports you, at some point you need to understand that you were wrong.
Dead wrong.
Brian
Default User wrote:
....
Wow, what an ego. If I don't go look at a Google link to try and find
some meaning that you are too coy to state, I'm unreasonable?
Misrepresenting the facts again ?
>
>>... If your point is that Google can treat a text attachment as if
it were inline, so what?
Very cool. Humor me once more and try to join the dots from here and
now come up with your list of objections to the original proposition.
Reflect on them just a little ask are they truly reasonable.
The list of objections has been stated repeatedly.
I'm asking for YOUR objections and now you're doing a SCO.
>
>I'll give you a hint, objecttions that are catch 22 are unresonable.
"My news server does not support attachments" IS unreasonable. News
servers can and so support attachments and it is only when the group
decides to change its policies that the administrators will change
theirs, not the other way around.
Nonsense. Oh, a news service might do so if there were an overwhelming
demand. This would not constitute it.
Be a little reasonable here. It's not the NNTP server administrator
that dictates the rules of attachments on the FAQ.
>
>This is what I think a reasonable person in your position would do.
Perhaps, IF I THOUGHT IT WERE A GOOD THING! Attachments are
objectionable for many reasons beyond that fact that
I can only interpret this as, "If it were a good thing to do I'd be
reasonable" - is this not the arguments that were made in 1611?
>
>I've already answered every objection and have agreed that there is
an unknown effect on only one. All other objections are a form of
the catch 22 which are simply cop-outs.
You have answered most of them by calling the person a luddite. That is
not an answer.
Go reread that. I think I made a case for why objecting to a proposal
for fear of change to be a bad thing.
... You've become completely irrational. When you post a
suggestion to a group as large and diverse as this one, and NO ONE
supports you, at some point you need to understand that you were wrong.
Dead wrong.
About what exactly am I dead wrong?
Gianni Mariani wrote:
Default User wrote:
The list of objections has been stated repeatedly.
I'm asking for YOUR objections and now you're doing a SCO.
Already posted.
Perhaps, IF I THOUGHT IT WERE A GOOD THING! Attachments are
objectionable for many reasons beyond that fact that
I can only interpret this as, "If it were a good thing to do I'd be
reasonable" - is this not the arguments that were made in 1611?
I have no idea what you mean.
About what exactly am I dead wrong?
Pick something, you haven't hit yet.
Brian
Default User wrote:
Gianni Mariani wrote:
>Default User wrote:
>>The list of objections has been stated repeatedly.
I'm asking for YOUR objections and now you're doing a SCO.
Already posted.
Do you work for SCO ?
>
>>Perhaps, IF I THOUGHT IT WERE A GOOD THING! Attachments are
objectionable for many reasons beyond that fact that
I can only interpret this as, "If it were a good thing to do I'd be
reasonable" - is this not the arguments that were made in 1611?
I have no idea what you mean.
>About what exactly am I dead wrong?
Pick something, you haven't hit yet.
Nice.
Default User wrote:
Devon Null wrote:
>Gianni Mariani wrote:
>>It's time for a change. I recommend that the faq-5.4 bullet be
changed:
Anyone disagree ?
First off, on a personal note, I have to say that reading this thread
has been IMMENSELY entertaining, and even mildly enlightening. It is a
very good social experiment on how quickly otherwise extraordinarily
intelligent (from my pov) people can devolve into a flame war.
Ha. You call this a flame war? You've obviously never seen a real one.
This is a best a warm-blanket war.
Brian
Dunno, never been in one so I just took a stab at a name for it. But it
is still rather funny by now. I'll concede the warm blanket comment.
lmao
DN
--
[there are no x's in my email]
I have the right to remain silent
(and should probably use it as much as possible)
Anything I type can and will be used against me
in a court of idiocy
I have the right to be wrong
(and probably am)
If I can not furnish my own wrongness
I'm sure someone will provide it for me.
Gianni Mariani wrote:
I had a pithy reply to your latest (not this one), but my newsreader
twice refused to send it. Something about "line 4 too long" that I
can't figure out.
Apparently it thinks it's time to let this drop. Who am I to argue?
Brian
In message <5d*************@mid.individual.net>, Default User
<de***********@yahoo.comwrites
>
I had a pithy reply to your latest (not this one), but my newsreader
twice refused to send it. Something about "line 4 too long" that I
can't figure out.
That'll be the References: line.
>
Apparently it thinks it's time to let this drop. Who am I to argue?
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <5d*************@mid.individual.net>, Default User
<de***********@yahoo.comwrites
I had a pithy reply to your latest (not this one), but my newsreader
twice refused to send it. Something about "line 4 too long" that I
can't figure out.
That'll be the References: line.
Yeah, it's pretty long. My newsreader hasn't complained about deeply
nested replies much before, but I see that some newsreaders (yours
apparently) separate the references with CRs or something.
Brian
In message <JJ********@news.boeing.com>, Default User
<de***********@yahoo.comwrites
>Richard Herring wrote:
>In message <5d*************@mid.individual.net>, Default User
<de***********@yahoo.comwrites
>
I had a pithy reply to your latest (not this one), but my newsreader
twice refused to send it. Something about "line 4 too long" that I
can't figure out.
That'll be the References: line.
Yeah, it's pretty long. My newsreader hasn't complained about deeply
nested replies much before, but I see that some newsreaders (yours
apparently) separate the references with CRs or something.
RFC822 (which 1036 referencs) says that long header lines can be folded
by inserting CRLF before syntactic whitespace.
ObC++: There's probably a moral in there somewhere, about fixed-length
buffers versus extensible containers.
--
Richard Herring This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Daniel |
last post by:
Is there a patch for congress new 2007 daylight savings time change?
http://geography.about.com/cs/daylightsavings/a/dst.htm This could have
economic impact like y2k did. Is there a patch for...
|
by: José Joye |
last post by:
In my application (written for Compact Framework 2.0 ), I have to be
informed whenever a system Time change occurs (NTP, daylight saving, ...).
Under the normal framework, I'm able to use the...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
| |
