From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cygwin-talk-return-2569-listarch-cygwin-talk=sources.redhat.com@cygwin.com>
Received: (qmail 28648 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2006 16:54:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 28641 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2006 16:54:27 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:54:25 +0000
Received: from mail.artimi.com ([192.168.1.3]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 	 Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:54:22 +0100
Received: from rainbow ([192.168.1.165]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 	 Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:54:22 +0100
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'only three more silly cygwin hippo references until beer o'clock!'" <cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>
Subject: RE: FW: allow read into untouched noreserve mappings
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:54:00 -0000
Message-ID: <033001c6ac1d$26be69c0$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <20060719165856.GD8056@calimero.vinschen.de>
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-talk-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com>, <http://cygwin.com/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com
Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>
X-SW-Source: 2006-q3/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2

On 19 July 2006 17:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Jul 19 17:49, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 19 July 2006 17:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> 
>>> shouldn't be as intransparent
>> 
>>   "opaque"  :)  JFYI!
> 
> It was on the tip of my tongue... er..., no, restart.
> 
> I had it in my fingertip but it just didn't came out.  And I was too
> lazy to look in to the dictionary, given the heat and all.
> 
> And then again, intransparent is as valid as opaque and it's also in
> the dictionary.

  Well, yes, of course, everyone knows that nonintransparent == unopaque ....
;)

> MAY A THOUSAND HIPPOS FALL ON YOU FOR HAVING ME LOOKING INTO THE
> DICTIONARY NOW!

  I couldn't possibly imagine a better way to get the weekend off to a
falling^W flying start!


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....