On Monday, 6 August 2007 13:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 6 August 2007 13:00, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > On 8/6/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes, in this context you're right, but this was not clear from the
> > > original
> > > post.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the p
On 8/6/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You don't need my further help in this issue.
>
> This was rather offensive.
Don't take my statement as offensive, this is the second time...
I do what I can up to the point you should decide what you wish to do.
For the license part: Th
On Monday, 6 August 2007 13:00, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 8/6/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, in this context you're right, but this was not clear from the original
> > post.
> >
> > Moreover, the printf() is buggy, not the function itself.
>
> Again... we go philosophical
On 8/6/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, in this context you're right, but this was not clear from the original
> post.
>
> Moreover, the printf() is buggy, not the function itself.
Again... we go philosophical...
Please fix the issue as you see it...
You don't need my furthe
On 8/6/07, Frank Seidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (and btw no need to CC me for an answer, i'm reading the list)
> It just wasn't clear what you meant (at least to me).
Hello,
All I do is reply-all...
You can configure your reply-to to the list...
This way people won't have to guess how it is
On Monday, 6 August 2007 10:18, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 8/6/07, Frank Seidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 06 August 2007 00:46:01 Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > On 8/6/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 6 August 2007 00:05, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > > >
> >
On Monday 06 August 2007 10:18:18 Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I MUST GOING CRAZY
> PLEASE WAKE ME UP
Hi,
i don't see a reason to get loud here ;-)
(and btw no need to CC me for an answer, i'm reading the list)
It just wasn't clear what you meant (at least to me).
> Here is the original function
On 8/6/07, Frank Seidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2007 00:46:01 Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > On 8/6/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Monday, 6 August 2007 00:05, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well... It never worked :)
> > >
> > > Why exactly do you
On Monday 06 August 2007 00:46:01 Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 8/6/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday, 6 August 2007 00:05, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > >
> > > Well... It never worked :)
> >
> > Why exactly do you think so?
>
> Because you increment buf and return it... This wi
On 8/6/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, 6 August 2007 00:05, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >
> > Well... It never worked :)
>
> Why exactly do you think so?
Because you increment buf and return it... This will not work with
printf() as it always be an empty string.
Alon.
---
On Monday, 6 August 2007 00:05, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
> Well... It never worked :)
Why exactly do you think so?
> This what happens on shortcuts...
> Why calling this inside printf context instead of making this own statement?
>
> ---
>
> --- suspend.org/resume.c 2007-05-13 20:53:13.0
Well... It never worked :)
This what happens on shortcuts...
Why calling this inside printf context instead of making this own statement?
---
--- suspend.org/resume.c2007-05-13 20:53:13.0 +0300
+++ suspend.work/resume.c 2007-08-06 00:59:57.0 +0300
@@ -377,10 +427,11
12 matches
Mail list logo
