On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:24:37PM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 15:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > > Roland's patch looks good and it is pretty straight-forward. I vote > > for its inclusion in PRE. > > And totally untested. > bah. there is no need to test a patch that can be mathematically proven to be correct (which is possible only for very small programs, usually). of course nobody will do a formal prove, and there is murphy's law, so a simple test is needed anyway - but i suppose roland did this, right? and if it breaks on system x for yet another lib y breakage ... who cares? i share jakub's opinion. i'd be opposed to this patch in general if it was not for the plainly incorrect semantics of the old code.
-- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! -- Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. _______________________________________________ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel