On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: > > I'm seeing your message and I don't know the answer. Do you want a > similar message from everyone who doesn't know the answer?
Naturally not; your response was far more wasteful than my post already, and not just because of wasting twice as many bytes. My post was an obvious attempt to get confirmation from Bram that he has seen this and to ascertain whether he agrees, disagrees, or is or is not considering this simple patch. Your post, on the other hand, contributed nothing whatsoever. > Then go ahead, continue spamming the list with identical repeats of > your post. This thread is only on vim-dev, rather than with Bram alone, for the convenience of those later searching to find out why this did not work on older vim versions, when someone noticed it, and when it began working properly - or, as the case may be, why the patch was not accepted. One message per week, on a developer mailing list, to ensure that a developer has seen and is considering a bug report, is by no means unreasonable. If someone considers it a waste of his time and bandwidth to receive messages about unfixed bugs in vim, I'd suggest that he unsubscribe from the vim development mailing list. ~Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
