Re: step forward on compilation

On Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 00:26:17 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Björn Döbel <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> >> In effect, this is quite the opposite of the
> >> #include "task_scheduler.hh", and then the -I flag
> >> to the compiler.
> >
> > Was that a question?
> 
> Actually, I'm only referring to how it looks on the
> surface. In the jungle beneath, the -I might just as
> well be exactly what happens... (?)
> 
> Thanks for your information. Yes, that's what I said, I
> sent a mail with questions that didn't appear (I never
> saw it anywhere anyway), nor any answers for that
> matter, and the second mail (which you answered) was a
> followup on that (or should have been, had I found the
> first mail).

You're posting with a non-subscribed address, so every post by you needs
to be approved. You should get a mail for every post being held.
And this one expired in the queue.

> So it is what I discovered since I wrote the first
> mail. That is, in the second mail, there are some
> questions answered, and some answers to be
> questioned...

May the force be with us.



Adam
-- 
Adam                 [email protected]
  Lackorzynski         http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/~adam/