| List: | MySQL++ | « Previous MessageNext Message » | |
| From: | Earl Miles | Date: | July 18 2005 3:17pm |
| Subject: | Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followed by 'long'is illegal ??? | ||
| View as plain text | |||
Warren Young wrote: > P.S. Please do not email me directly. Keep this thread on the mailing > list. A lot of people are going to do that, because the list isn't set up with a Reply-To: to send things back to the list, so you have to remember to Reply-All (which I often forget and realize about 5 minutes later when the msg doesn't show up and go resend it to the list). And with Reply-All you still end up sending 2 copies to the original author. I know the list is hosted by mysql.com, and am not sure if anyone actually has admin abilities on the list; but if so, could it be changed so that Reply goes to the list, rather than the author? I think it's much more common for people to want to send stuff to the list than directly to an author. Every other list I'm on is set up with a Reply-To: to the list.
| Thread | ||
|---|---|---|
| • Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followed by 'long'is illegal ??? | np | 18 Jul |
| • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ??? | Warren Young | 18 Jul |
| • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ??? | Earl Miles | 18 Jul |
| • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ??? | Warren Young | 18 Jul |
| • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ??? | Warren Young | 18 Jul |
| • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ??? | Earl Miles | 18 Jul |
| • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ??? | Warren Young | 18 Jul |
| • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ??? | Earl Miles | 18 Jul |
| • Re: reply-to discussion | Chris Frey | 21 Jul |
| • Re: reply-to discussion | Earl Miles | 21 Jul |
