Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3F4FBADF.12E0F3F5@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:43:11 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC:	rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com
Subject:	Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
References:	<200308272025 DOT h7RKPrFT003625 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <3F4E1401 DOT 1020602 AT cyberoptics DOT com> <9003-Thu28Aug2003183345+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3F4E83A1 DOT 44F9EC13 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <7263-Fri29Aug2003133753+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:35:13 +0100
> > From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
[snip]
> > BTW I think you've got too many negatives above. Should it be:
> >
> > "Neither libc.a nor libm.a, as we have them, produce SIGFPE; on the
> > contrary, they go to great lengths to avoid that."
> 
> What can I say? I'm not a native English speaker.

For some reason this seems to have been taken as a criticism. I didn't mean it
like that. I was trying to clarify what you meant by suggesting what I thought
you meant.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -