On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:59:48 +0200, Lionel wrote in message
<20160606145948.ga4...@capsaicin.mamane.lu>:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:13:41PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Paul Wise dijo [Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:59:03PM +0800]:
> > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Jan Luca Naumann wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:13:41PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Paul Wise dijo [Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:59:03PM +0800]:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Jan Luca Naumann wrote:
> >
> > > The best thing should be to ask the upstream author to replace the file,
> > > shouldn't it?
> >
> > The
* Gunnar Wolf , 2016-06-01, 19:13:
http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/logging-in-c/201804215?pgno=4
[...]
I scratched my head with curiosity as to how an article from April 2018
was being refered... Not only that — It seems that in the next few
years we will get a calendar reform so
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
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
>
5 matches
Mail list logo