Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| "John" == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| John The only reason you get mails from me personally as well as to
| John the list is indeed my laziness. My fault of course ! But I
| John stupidly use pine, and am wedded to it now. I don't
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| John> The only reason you get mails from me personally as well as to
| John> the list is indeed my laziness. My fault of course ! But I
| John> stupidly use pine, and am wedded to it
On 19-Oct-2000 Andre Poenitz wrote:
[snip VERY good explanation]
PS: Since we are at it: Default-constructing std::strings is pretty cheap, too.
Ok this convinced me, from now on I will do as you "preached" #:O)
Jürgen
P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use and why it is so hard
P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use
Elm 2.4ME+ PL60 (25), of May, 1999
and why it is so hard to remove personal addresses
In my case it's simply laziness.
Mate isn't it possible to set the Reply-To address
automatically to the list?
I read a handful lists
On 20-Oct-2000 Andre Poenitz wrote:
I read a handful lists with such a policy and I do not like it more than
our current policy. Sometimes I simply want to reply to the sender only,
and this is easier if ReplyTo points to this single person...
This may happen, but let's say that (at least
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:30:53AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use and why it is so hard to
remove personal addresses if you know the one is subscribed to the
list anyway. Mate isn't it possible to set the Reply-To address
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Juergen Vigna wrote:
P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use and why it is so hard to
remove personal addresses if you know the one is subscribed to the
list anyway. Mate isn't it possible to set the Reply-To address
automatically to the list? I
"John" == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John The only reason you get mails from me personally as well as to
John the list is indeed my laziness. My fault of course ! But I
John stupidly use pine, and am wedded to it now. I don't know why it
John doesn't have a proper reply-to choice
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:30:53AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
[snip things that actually matter]
P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use and why it is so hard to
remove personal addresses if you know the one is subscribed to the
list anyway. Mate isn't it possible to set
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:22:40PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"John" == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John The only reason you get mails from me personally as well as to
John the list is indeed my laziness. My fault of course ! But I
John stupidly use pine, and am wedded to
On 19-Oct-2000 Andre Poenitz wrote:
[snip VERY good explanation]
>
> PS: Since we are at it: Default-constructing std::strings is pretty cheap, too.
Ok this convinced me, from now on I will do as you "preached" #:O)
Jürgen
P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use and why it is so
> P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use
Elm 2.4ME+ PL60 (25), of May, 1999
> and why it is so hard to remove personal addresses
In my case it's simply laziness.
> Mate isn't it possible to set the Reply-To address
> automatically to the list?
I read a handful
On 20-Oct-2000 Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> I read a handful lists with such a policy and I do not like it more than
> our current policy. Sometimes I simply want to reply to the sender only,
> and this is easier if ReplyTo points to this single person...
This may happen, but let's say that (at
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:30:53AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use and why it is so hard to
> remove personal addresses if you know the one is subscribed to the
> list anyway. Mate isn't it possible to set the Reply-To address
>
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use and why it is so hard to
> remove personal addresses if you know the one is subscribed to the
> list anyway. Mate isn't it possible to set the Reply-To address
> automatically to the list?
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> The only reason you get mails from me personally as well as to
John> the list is indeed my laziness. My fault of course ! But I
John> stupidly use pine, and am wedded to it now. I don't know why it
John> doesn't have a proper reply-to
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:30:53AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
[snip things that actually matter]
> P.S.: I wonder what mail-programs people use and why it is so hard to
> remove personal addresses if you know the one is subscribed to the
> list anyway. Mate isn't it possible to set
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:22:40PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> The only reason you get mails from me personally as well as to
> John> the list is indeed my laziness. My fault of course ! But I
> John> stupidly use pine,
On 18-Oct-2000 John Levon wrote:
Try loading up TableExamples.lyx, and do ascii export,
or try and cut the first table - it will not be happy.
I fixed this again, but the one who changed some types in LyXTabular::Ascii
should have red ears to not try out the changes he did! This was ones
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 18-Oct-2000 John Levon wrote:
|
| Try loading up TableExamples.lyx, and do ascii export,
| or try and cut the first table - it will not be happy.
|
|
| I fixed this again, but the one who changed some types in LyXTabular::Ascii
| should have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| And I really don't like how variables are declared at the top and used
| inside separate blocks (ref. int cell)
This would suit me a lot better:
Index: tabular.C
===
RCS file:
On 19-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| And I really don't like how variables are declared at the top and used
| inside separate blocks (ref. int cell)
This would suit me a lot better:
Well and I don't get what we gain with this? We
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 19-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
|
| | And I really don't like how variables are declared at the top and used
| | inside separate blocks (ref. int cell)
|
| This would suit me a lot
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| | On 19-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| | | And I really don't like how variables are declared at
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 19-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| | And I really don't like how variables are declared at the top and used
| | inside separate blocks (ref.
Well and I don't get what we gain with this? We NEED that variable all
over (so no case we wouldn't need it), so why allocating it X times if
just 1 time is enough!
It is simply cleaner and for some people (including me) simpler to read.
Once the variable is gone, it's gone. No side effects
I think that Jürgen is asking the question, "is it more expensive to assign
PODs (your notation I think) or to construct them?" Well, if he isn't, I am!
Default-constructing a POD costs nada, they is no assignment at all.
There might be three ints on the stack in this case, but they
are
On 18-Oct-2000 John Levon wrote:
>
> Try loading up TableExamples.lyx, and do ascii export,
> or try and cut the first table - it will not be happy.
>
I fixed this again, but the one who changed some types in LyXTabular::Ascii
should have red ears to not try out the changes he did! This was
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 18-Oct-2000 John Levon wrote:
| >
| > Try loading up TableExamples.lyx, and do ascii export,
| > or try and cut the first table - it will not be happy.
| >
|
| I fixed this again, but the one who changed some types in LyXTabular::Ascii
| should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| And I really don't like how variables are declared at the top and used
| inside separate blocks (ref. int cell)
This would suit me a lot better:
Index: tabular.C
===
RCS file:
On 19-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>
>| And I really don't like how variables are declared at the top and used
>| inside separate blocks (ref. int cell)
>
> This would suit me a lot better:
Well and I don't get what we gain with this?
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 19-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| >
| >| And I really don't like how variables are declared at the top and used
| >| inside separate blocks (ref. int cell)
| >
| > This would suit me a
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | On 19-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| > | >| And I really don't like how variables are
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | On 19-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
> | >| And I really don't like how variables are declared at the top and used
> | >| inside separate
> Well and I don't get what we gain with this? We NEED that variable all
> over (so no case we wouldn't need it), so why allocating it X times if
> just 1 time is enough!
It is simply cleaner and for some people (including me) simpler to read.
Once the variable is gone, it's gone. No side
> I think that Jürgen is asking the question, "is it more expensive to assign
> PODs (your notation I think) or to construct them?" Well, if he isn't, I am!
Default-constructing a POD costs nada, they is no assignment at all.
There might be three ints on the stack in this case, but they
are
36 matches
Mail list logo
