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

2016-06-08 Thread Arnt Karlsen
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: > > >

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

2016-06-06 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
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

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

2016-06-02 Thread Jakub Wilk
* 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

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

2016-06-01 Thread Ben Finney
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

2016-06-01 Thread Ben Finney
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 >