On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, matthew green wrote:
+static int
+internal_vw_printw(WINDOW *win, char *arg1, ...)
This code looks identical to that in wprintw(). Why does it
need to be duplicated under another name?
well, the test is about testing vw_printw() directly, not
wprintw().
Ah, of
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:03:46PM +, Martin Husemann wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: martin
Date: Mon Apr 11 20:03:45 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/distrib/sets/lists/etc: mi
src/etc: Makefile
src/etc/mtree: NetBSD.dist.base special
Log Message:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:39:54AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
Wouldn't it be less confusing to have opened /etc/protocols before
doing the chroot ??
Hmm, now that you mention it - a
setprotoent(1);
before the chroot should do, shouldn't it?
I don't know which solution is preferable,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:51:39PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
but this looks indeed simpler (haven't tested it though).
I did a very quick test: does not work - I won't have time to dig any further
today or tomorrow, if somebody gets it working this way, and this is
prefered somehow, please
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:22:50AM +, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: jruoho
Date: Tue Apr 12 08:22:49 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/distrib/sets/lists/comp: mi
src/share/man/man3: Makefile
Added Files:
src/share/man/man3: tm.3
Log
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
This exhibits something particularly well that's been bugging me for
quite a while about such documentation changes: I think documenting
the implementation's structure layouts in section 3 is wrong, at least
when supposedly portable
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:24:00PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
by being that specific, such documentation creates the obligation to
keep the redundant definition in sync.
PS.
If you look what I've written in, say, stdlib(3),
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:25:06PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:24:00PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
by being that specific, such documentation creates the obligation to
keep the redundant definition
Klaus Klein kle...@kleink.org wrote:
Log Message:
Add a small summary parge for struct tm from time.h. Cf. timeval(3).
This exhibits something particularly well that's been bugging me for
quite a while about such documentation changes: I think documenting
the implementation's structure
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Klaus Klein kle...@kleink.org wrote:
Log Message:
Add a small summary parge for struct tm from time.h. Cf. timeval(3).
This exhibits something particularly well that's been bugging me for
quite a while about such documentation
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:21:29PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
This exhibits something particularly well that's been bugging me for
quite a while about such documentation changes: I think documenting
the implementation's
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:25:06PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:24:00PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
by being that specific, such documentation creates the obligation to
keep the redundant definition
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:56:27PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
Just to make it clear again, it's really just the structure
definitions being documented verbatim I'm taking issue with.
I agree with this and Iain's earlier comment about using a wording such as
[...] has at least the following
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:22:17PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
And to use mktime(3), you must know the tm structure.
No, you don't have to. That's the point Klaus is trying to make.
You need to know that certain fields exist, maybe also which type they
have. But you don't need to know the
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:26:40PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:22:17PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
And to use mktime(3), you must know the tm structure.
No, you don't have to. That's the point Klaus is trying to make.
You need to know that certain fields
15 matches
Mail list logo
