Re: Max Path [Newbie]

From: Keith Thompson (kst-u_at_mib.org)
Date: 10/04/04 

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:44:45 GMT

Dan.Pop@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
> In <ln1xgicohs.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
>>You snipped most of the paragraph, including the part where I
>>explicitly made the point that HP's off-by-one error doesn't affect
>>the conformance of their implementation. You then made exactly the
>>same point yourself. Why?
>
> Because I didn't bother reading more than I have quoted. I saw
> a pointless remark and I have addressed it. If you knew it was
> a pointless remark, why did you feel compelled to make it in the
> first place?

And you couldn't be bothered to read *the rest of the paragraph*?

Dan, do us all a favor. If you're not willing to take the time to
read an entire article, don't bother posting a followup. It wastes
your time and everyone else's, and it doesn't reflect well on your
reading comprehension skills. I honestly expected better of you.

In any case, the remark was not pointless. I was discussing the basis
for one implementation's definition of FILENAME_MAX in relation to the
standard's requirements. 

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center             <*>  <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this.

Relevant Pages