I'm in Seattle, Washington. I'll keep your addresses on file for when
I make my next visit to BC.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 05:10:46PM -0700, Norman Jordan wrote:
> I am a developer in Victoria. I don't go to Vancouver very often but I
> can sign keys for people in Victoria.
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 20
Good grief. Can you be more constructive? Do you have a reference
that supports the claim?
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 12:11:35AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I don't find any such mention in K&R [1978]. There is nothing I can
> > see to guarantees that MAX_
I don't find any such mention in K&R [1978]. There is nothing I can
see to guarantees that MAX_INT + 1 < 0.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 12:56:19AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:03:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > I yet have to see a machine that does not u
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:01:37PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 08:58:57AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > Why don't you "man fts_read" and implement the correct way of checking
> > > for errors?
> >
> > I believe the author wrote the original loop because the fts_
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 03:36:48PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 12:04:44AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [How to write bad code]
>
> Why don't you "man fts_read" and implement the correct way of checking
> for errors?
I believe the author wrote the original loop bec
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:49:09PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 07:01:17AM +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> > > On 13/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > | int i;
> > > | for (i = 0; i > -1
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 07:01:17AM +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> On 13/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> | int i;
> | for (i = 0; i > -1; i += 1) {
> | // ...
> | if (terminal_condition)
> | break;
> | // ...
> | }
> [...]
> | Moreover, i is never used. The loop co
int i;
for (i = 0; i > -1; i += 1) {
// ...
if (terminal_condition)
break;
// ...
}
Let me be more explicit. I'm reading the slocate code to figure out
why it isn't producing a database on my machine. There is a loop that
reads
int i;
// ...
for (i = 0; i > -1
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:13:02PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm working on a diskless workstation configuration where I don't want
> mailers running on each machine, though users may have access to the
> mail spool through nfs. Is it appropriate for apt-get to coerce exim
> to be installe
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 10:22:44PM +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> >I'm working on a diskless workstation configuration where I don't want
> >mailers running on each machine, though users may have access to the
> >mail spool through nfs. Is it appropriate for apt-get to coerce exim
> >to be installe
I'm working on a diskless workstation configuration where I don't want
mailers running on each machine, though users may have access to the
mail spool through nfs. Is it appropriate for apt-get to coerce exim
to be installed when I only need a reader? Is this a problem about
finding the smtp agen
I'll start with the question(s) for the impatient. Is anyone
experiencing deadlocks between nfs-kernel-server and ext3? How about
symlink errors using nfs-user-server? There is nothing in the debian
bugs database about either of these problems. Nor is there anything
about the ext3 deadlock in g
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to always explicitly
> declare all char variables as signed or unsigned; otherwise, you're just
> asking for latent bugs.
IMHO, this is a peculiar statement. The type 'char' is best
13 matches
Mail list logo
