Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
From: Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 1998 11:10:52 -0500
Message-id: <[🔎] 87r9zbz0tv.fsf@nevermore.csres.utexas.edu>
In-reply-to: "Stephen J. Carpenter"'s message of "Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:29:21 -0400"
References: <rdm@test.legislate.com> <[🔎] 199807240427.FAA13241@linda.lfix.co.uk> <[🔎] 19980724064333.04268@test.legislate.com> <[🔎] 19980724115035.E1875@cogs.susx.ac.uk> <[🔎] 19980724092921.B5345@mgh.harvard.edu>

"Stephen J. Carpenter" <sjc@delphi.com> writes:

> ...but I have never seen any argument in favor of code in header
> files)

inline functions.

-- 
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
  - From: "Stephen J. Carpenter" <sjc@delphi.com>

References:
- Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
  - From: "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>
- Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
  - From: Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>
- Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
  - From: Luis Francisco Gonzalez <luisgh@cogs.susx.ac.uk>
- Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
  - From: "Stephen J. Carpenter" <sjc@delphi.com>

Prev by Date: Errata page for 2.0
Next by Date: Debian 2.0 release info has a small mistake
Previous by thread: Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
Next by thread: Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread