Bugs item #3140460, was opened at 2010-12-20 01:44
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by bharder
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=102915&aid=3140460&group_id=2915
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the co
Bugs item #3140459, was opened at 2010-12-20 01:43
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by bharder
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=102915&aid=3140459&group_id=2915
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the co
Bugs item #3140458, was opened at 2010-12-20 01:41
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by bharder
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=102915&aid=3140458&group_id=2915
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the co
Bugs item #3140457, was opened at 2010-12-20 01:39
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by bharder
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=102915&aid=3140457&group_id=2915
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the co
On Dec 19, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> Dave, do you see any downsides
> to the above idea as I have fleshed it out?
Only the ones I outlined earlier in this thread...
On Dec 18, 2010, at 11:34 AM, David MacMahon wrote:
> I think automatic allocation by the library function, while
Hi Dave (with a question for Andrew at the end):
> On Dec 18, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> With plgnfnam that would be changed to something like
>>
>> (needed_size, fnam) = plgnfnam(100)
>> if needed_size >= 100:
>> # Oops, 100 was too small.
>> fname = plgnfnam(needed_size+1)[1]
>
