Re: [tlug] XEmacs vs. Unix

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:48:13 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com> wrote:

>  > Anyway, even if it were, better the code dead than the idiot. (We really
>  > love Josh, despite picking on him all the time. He's like our own
>  > personal Steve Yegge.)
> 
> Speak for yourself.  I do not love Steve Yegge, who far from being an
> idiot, is a much lower form of life: assus pompousiferus.

Could you explain what there is about Steve Yegge to know, that wikipedia
doesnt tell? Especially for those poor souls who are stuck at using
vi instead of seing the great enlightenment of emacs.
 
>  > Additional bonus: this should optimize very well, and if it doesn't, we
>  > can make sure it does with a preprocessor macro.
> 
> Haven't you heard?  GCC 4.6 is going to reserve to itself the choice of
> whether to compile macros inline, or optimize them into function calls!

I'd be glad if there would be again a stable gcc version that could
compile MPlayer _correctly_ (ie w/o producing a binary that fails at
random, non-obvious points).

			Attila Kinali
-- 
The trouble with you, Shev, is you don't say anything until you've saved
up a whole truckload of damned heavy brick arguments and then you dump
them all out and never look at the bleeding body mangled beneath the heap
		-- Tirin, The Dispossessed, U. Le Guin