Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- From: "Steve" <nospam_steved94@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 05:36:18 -0800
"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:SjDbf.744$Id6.15@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Steve wrote:
>>
>> You're missing my point.
>
> So it seems. And you're missing mine.
>
Not at all.
I was trying to make a different point.
Steve
(The Duck)
> --
> Jeff Carter
> "C's solution to this [variable-sized arrays] has real problems,
> and people who are complaining about safety definitely have a point."
> Dennis Ritchie
> 25
.
- References:
- Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- From: Anonymous Coward
- Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- From: Steve
- Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- From: Anonymous Coward
- Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- From: Jeffrey R. Carter
- Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- From: Steve
- Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- From: Jeffrey R. Carter
- Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- From: Steve
- Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- From: Jeffrey R. Carter
- Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- Prev by Date: Re: Dispatching operations
- Next by Date: Re: Advice on abort
- Previous by thread: Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- Next by thread: Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|