Re: DATETIME like YYYYMMDDHHMMSS
From: Mike Wahler (mkwahler_at_mkwahler.net)
Date: 10/04/04
- Next message: Mike Wahler: "Re: DATETIME like YYYYMMDDHHMMSS"
- Previous message: Mike Wahler: "Re: Tutorial for new user?"
- In reply to: JKop: "Re: DATETIME like YYYYMMDDHHMMSS"
- Next in thread: White Wolf: "Re: DATETIME like YYYYMMDDHHMMSS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:38:28 GMT
"JKop" <NULL@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:l668d.32710$Z14.11987@news.indigo.ie...
>
> >> Starting with two deprecated headers and followed by pure C code.
> >
> > which also qualifies as 'pure C++ code'.
>
>
> int Blah()
> {
> return 5;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Blah(8);
> }
>
>
> Case and point.
What is your point? What you wrote above is *not* valid C++,
but is valid C (99).
>
> C is irrelevant here.
It is relevant to "White Wolf"s remarks, since that was what
he talked about.
>
>
> > Call it what you like. It *is* C++, according to 14882.
>
>
> Just like a banger is still a car.
I don't know what a 'banger' is. (I'll guess it's some
sort of 'slang', but 'slang' and informal terms imo should
be eschewed in a technical forum. It only leads to confusion.
-Mike
- Next message: Mike Wahler: "Re: DATETIME like YYYYMMDDHHMMSS"
- Previous message: Mike Wahler: "Re: Tutorial for new user?"
- In reply to: JKop: "Re: DATETIME like YYYYMMDDHHMMSS"
- Next in thread: White Wolf: "Re: DATETIME like YYYYMMDDHHMMSS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]