On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 08:11:57PM +, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Expect POSIX to add significant technical cost over time, like ISO, ANSI,
> the most monstruous being the w3c.
You ever try to write POSIX utilities according to the standard? Believe
me, POSIX of all standards doesn't
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:27:12 +0300
Platon Ryzhikov wrote:
Dear Platon,
> I tried to use quark as local server for pacman but it returns 404
> error for files with '+' in filename. I found the following lines in
> http.c (83-85):
>
> if (*s == '+') {
> dest[i] = ' ';
> }
>
> Why does it
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 03:56, Martin Tournoij wrote:
> Don't want to start a discussion about it, but I'm curious why // is
> disallowed? AFAIK all compilers accept // these days, and have for a
> long time?
Consistency, -- we only want one way of comments in code, as with
everything else.
Hi
I tried to use quark as local server for pacman but it returns 404 error for
files with '+' in filename. I found the following lines in http.c (83-85):
if (*s == '+') {
dest[i] = ' ';
}
Why does it replace '+' sign with space?
A big warning: a "standard" is not anymore sufficient. Look at the microsoft
xml document format at ISO.
It means the corporations which have an interest at making file formats
complex in order to kill any light software implementation alternative _will go
through standard bodies_. Look at what
Hello Martin,
> The coding style says:
>
> > Use /* */ for comments, not //
>
> Don't want to start a discussion about it, but I'm curious why // is
> disallowed? AFAIK all compilers accept // these days, and have for a
> long time?
>
> I've always preferred // since they can nest (you can
> > The only issue I see with c99 code is that some of the compilers
> > appear to be behind the times on c. Any reason why we wouldn???t want
> > to use a newer c feature other than compatibility?
>
> it's always about weighing convenience against freedom. Modern language
> standards have picked
Hi Stephen,
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 01:14, Stephen Gregoratto wrote:
> I am interested in creating an OpenBSD port of 9base, as the current p9p
> port depends on ghostscript (which I don't need on a server). However,
> the current tagged version of 9base is now 8.5 years old, and there have
> been
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 08:46:51 -0500
stephen Turner wrote:
Dear Stephen,
> The only issue I see with c99 code is that some of the compilers
> appear to be behind the times on c. Any reason why we wouldn’t want
> to use a newer c feature other than compatibility?
it's always about weighing
The only issue I see with c99 code is that some of the compilers appear to be
behind the times on c. Any reason why we wouldn’t want to use a newer c feature
other than compatibility?
Thanks,
Stephen
On Jan 10, 2019, at 4:27 AM, David Demelier wrote:
Le 27/12/2018 à 11:10, Silvan Jegen a
Le 27/12/2018 à 11:10, Silvan Jegen a écrit :
The only downside of //-style comments that I can
see is that they are only allowed since C99[0].
Yes, but C99 was released 20 years ago. Perhaps it's okay to use it
nowadays :)
Regards,
--
David
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:36:25AM +, Jakub Labath wrote:
> Hi
>
> So I experienced this problems myself , this was roughly my journey.
>
> I messed with fonts on my gentoo installing some from google some time
> after X would start crashing when surfing web.
> Eventually got lucky and found
12 matches
Mail list logo
