From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:29:08 -0700 From: "Russ Cox" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] First/second edition image manipulation tools In-Reply-To: <99240531-8057-4BFA-BA18-D100D397CC63@mac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080612034450.30B801E8C53@holo.morphisms.net> <99240531-8057-4BFA-BA18-D100D397CC63@mac.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: bdbef098-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > According to arg(2), that's not a good idea. > "ARGF must be called just once for each option that takes an > argument." Who are you going to believe? Me or that lying man page? > See if your code works. I'm not your code monkey. You mentioned that you didn't know how to do something; I pointed out how. If you are skeptical about my suggestion, why not give me the benefit of the doubt, at least for a minute, and try it yourself? (It was two lines of code!) Your posts often feel like knee-jerk responses. This is a mailing list, and it goes to a lot of people. Instead of replying immediately, you might consider putting in a few extra minutes of work to gather and include actual technical content. For example, you could try the code I posted and say "that doesn't work for me", posting a tiny sample program and its output. Or you could try it, find that it *does* work, and say something like "Apparently that does work, but I'm worried about this line in the man page." Telling me to try it, when you're the one who actually has a use for the code, is just the pinnacle of laziness. Russ