On 25/11/12 13:50, Colin McCabe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Sam Bobroff wrote:
>> On 20/11/12 21:34, Marc Lehmann wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:54:50AM +, Sam Bobroff
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sorry if you felt that I'd disrespe
On 20/11/12 21:34, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:54:50AM +0000, Sam Bobroff
> wrote:
>> Sorry if you felt that I'd disrespected your code, that wasn't my
> A hack is something that happens to work, but is not well done.
>
>>> This use of
On 20/11/12 12:32, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:16:04AM +0000, Sam Bobroff
> wrote:
>> Maybe those hack strings should removed from the assert calls and be
>> moved into comments in the code?
> Calling this a "hack" just shows your imm
On 16/11/12 23:09, Yoran Heling wrote:
[snip]
> Just look at the source:
>
>assert (("libev: watcher has invalid priority", ABSPRI (w) >= 0 && ABSPRI
> (w) < NUMPRI));
>
> The string has absolutely no effect to the behaviour of the code, so the
> warning makes sense. However, that string *is*
