List:MySQL++« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Warren Young Date:July 18 2005 5:43pm
Subject:Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followed
by 'long'is illegal ???
View as plain text  
Earl Miles wrote:

> Ok, that's one of the more arrogant arguments I've ever read, 

It doesn't matter what you think of the argument, many people out there 
hold it.  FWIW, the author of that would probably think it arrogant to 
hold your position, too.  Point is, it's a touchy issue.

>  it
> does convince me to no longer bother to delete the extra address when I 
> hit reply-to, causing the author to get a double copy of the message.

??  That's one of the things I _don't_ want.  Decide who you want to 
respond to: the list, or to the original poster, but never both; and 
prefer the list.
Thread
Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followed by 'long'is illegal ???np18 Jul
  • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Warren Young18 Jul
    • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Earl Miles18 Jul
      • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Warren Young18 Jul
        • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Warren Young18 Jul
        • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Earl Miles18 Jul
          • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Warren Young18 Jul
            • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Earl Miles18 Jul
              • Re: reply-to discussionChris Frey21 Jul
                • Re: reply-to discussionEarl Miles21 Jul