Re: Legal question to a file from Dr. Dobb's

Ben Finney writes: > Silly rabbit. Surely it's obvious to everyone here that those timestamp > components are in increasing order of specificity. That's a reference to > 18:20 on the 4th of February in the year 15 (of the current century). Thanks to those who spotted

Re: Legal question to a file from Dr. Dobb's

Gunnar Wolf writes: > Paul Wise dijo [Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:59:03PM +0800]: > > http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/logging-in-c/201804215?pgno=4 > > IDs that follow formats similar to dates should be avoided and > banned. I scratched my head with curiosity as to how an article from >