Re: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?

From: Brad Pierce <Brad.Pierce_at_.....>
Date: Fri May 12 2006 - 10:07:59 PDT

Then why not allow only #1step?

>I already 
>tell people that there is no known good reason to use a step value 
>other than #1step and that using #2step or greater opens the door to 
>potential race conditions.

-- Brad

Received on Fri May 12 10:07:58 2006

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Clifford E. Cummings: "RE: [sv-bc] FW: Can a keyword be used as identifier if context is clear?"
Previous message: Clifford E. Cummings: "RE: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?"
Maybe in reply to: Stuart Sutherland: "[sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?"
Next in thread: Clifford E. Cummings: "Re: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 12 2006 - 10:08:04 PDT