Date:	Wed, 7 Jun 1995 09:11:32 +0300
From:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
To:	junaid AT wilma DOT eng DOT monash DOT edu DOT au, turnbull AT turnbull DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp
Subject:	Re: VOTE: CODE STANDARDS
Cc:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu

> I strongly considered making this message private.  Unfortunately, since 
> a couple of people are persisting in pushing for *other* people to do 
> them favors (it's not just Junaid), the point needs to be made publically.

I *did* send my detailed reply to Junaid in a private mail.  Unfortunately,
he chose to post to the newsgroup his answer to me, which is at least
impolite.

I agree absolutely with what DJ and others said on this: if you find some
piece of code/docs in DJGPP which makes you unhappy, sit down and fix it.
It's really a small wonder that we agree on that issue: the above paradigm
is, after all, something we use in improving DJGPP day by day (or shall I
say ``night by night''? ;-).

Morten Welinder <terra AT diku DOT dk> writes:
> Most of the routines are short.  Look at the current (for a few
> more days) version of rename.c below.  What more comments do
> you want?  (Forget about those in the docs and those that are

And, of course, rename.c of the day has much more comments.  (What would you
expect from something I wrote?)

And that's all I would like to add to this thread.  Enough was said already,
including some uncalled-for sarcasm and explosive religious issues.  Let's
leave it at that and get to work/fun.  After all, even in Russia people don't
have to agree on everything anymore.

- Raw text -