Pavel Roskin wrote:
While the code is correct, it's not obvious for gcc. The knee-jerk
reaction could be to initialize val in caller(), but sometimes it may be
better to fix callee(), especially if it's used many times. Even more
so if it's not documented that the pointer won't be initialized
Hello mc-devel, Miguel,
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 17:46 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for raising this issue up, I think that we should proceed in
various stages to address some of the problems that we have today in mc:
* The website should move to a Wiki.
I
Hi all. I own LRSE Hosting. If you need hosting, I'd be happy to setup a
virtual server for MC to host a wiki/slash/scoop whatever site. Free of
charge, of course. I'd just be happy to be able to give a little back for
such a great program.
--
Regards,
Scott
--- [ Peter Masiar ] ===---
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #7872 (project mc):
[...] We could just as well start matching all possible paths to the
binaries.
i can't claim i'd understand that paragraph. :}
[...] If you could comment on the usefulness [...]
i'm can't claim to be a python wiz, either.
Hi Pavel,
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 03:20, Pavel Roskin wrote:
I would suggest if such a step would be made we use the MC_4_6_1_PRE for
this. HEAD is somewhat experimental.
I disagree. We would confuse everybody. The 4.6.1 branch should be
released as 4.6.1 if at all (maybe as 4.6.2 if
Hi Pavel,
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 03:13, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Not doing a release for years even though there has been significant
progress is what affects the credibility of the project.
I agree.
...
I agree except the fact that nobody has ever told me that all e-mail was
read and acted
Hi Jindrich, Miguel,
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 12:28, Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 17:46 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
* Release-often: MC has not been officially released for a
long time. I propose that the current CVS gets released
as MC 5.0 and if any issues
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 11:58 +0200, Roland Illig wrote:
Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 13:24 +0200, Roland Illig wrote:
please run the ./strip-location.sh script on all files you want to
commit. The locations are only redundant information for the translator.
To regenerate the
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 20:08 +, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #7872 (project mc):
My question is why do we need the extra code to match '/usr/bin/env' if all
we need to match is 'perl'? It seems redundant. Like trying to match
'/usr/bin/perl',
Hi Oswald,
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 20:07, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:24:06PM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Any objections against me committing this patch? The real command line
argument seems bogus, as a real command line would accept a command
existing of
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:44:01PM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 20:07, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:24:06PM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
So can I commit this? I'll verify that it works first ;) , but the patch
seems straight
Hi Pavel,
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 22:43, Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 20:08 +, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #7872 (project mc):
My question is why do we need the extra code to match '/usr/bin/env' if all
we need to match is 'perl'? It seems
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #7872 (project mc):
i'd prefer to have the exact match as a simple correctness check. oh, well.
is just the same as , except that you can embed physical newlines in
this type of string.
actually reading the BNF in the page i linked to would have revealed that (as
it
Hi Oswald,
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 22:56, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
of course not. i had a look and have not found something fundamentally
broken about it. if a real mc developer would do the same, it should
be totally sufficient.
I'm not sure if I would qualify.
this paranoid checking policy
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #7872 (project mc):
I just don't feel like actually verifying this. Duh.
___
Reply to this item at:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitemitem_id=7872
___
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:12:21PM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 22:56, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
this paranoid checking policy doesn't get us anywhere but to the current
state of stagnation.
Bollocks. [how reviewing is good, etc.]
i was talking about the
16 matches
Mail list logo
