> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:53:56 -0500 > From: Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: VFP9
> but it still ignores the fact > that it is cowardly and annoying for them to insist that this isn't a > bug. Except that I think you've put more thought into the resolution than the resolver of the bug did. It's not unreasonable to argue that it is indeed a bug; I'm with you there. I also don't think it unreasonable to argue that the function that is called was originally designed to handle < 256 chars, semantically making it "by design". It's not like there was an hour-long meeting about this one, complete with debates on how to spin this PR disaster; more like five minutes in triage (tops), and then "next bug, please". In the end, the outcome is the same: it's not going to get fixed, and there is a reasonable (to me) workaround. -- Mike Stewart _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
