On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:54:20 +0100, Marten Veldthuis
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:30:13 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> > But I still have a hard time justifying user operations to manipulate
> > threading. The whole point of threading is to make it faster to process
> > and read messages. But
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:45:14 +, Olly Betts wrote:
> Carl Worth writes:
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:49:00 -0700, Mark Anderson wrote:
> > > I was updating my poll script that tags messages, and a common idiom is
> > > to put
> > > tag +mytag and not tag:mytag
> > >
> > > I don't know
[Sorry, I seemed to manage to attach my reply to the wrong thread...]
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 07:57:21AM +0100, Tomas Carnecky wrote:
> On 12/23/09 12:02 AM, Olly Betts wrote:
>> Rather than a platform-specific check, it would be better to check if DT_DIR
>> is defined.
>>
>> Beware that even on
On 12/23/09 12:02 AM, Olly Betts wrote:
> Tomas Carnecky writes:
>> #if defined(__sun__)
>> ... sprintf, stat etc
>> #else
>> (void) path;
>> return dirent->d_type == DT_DIR;
>> #endif
>
> Rather than a platform-specific check, it would be better to check if DT_DIR
> is defined.
>
>
Carl Worth writes:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:49:00 -0700, Mark Anderson wrote:
> > I was updating my poll script that tags messages, and a common idiom is
> > to put
> > tag +mytag and not tag:mytag
> >
> > I don't know anything about efficiency, but for the simple single-tag
> > case, couldn't
