From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5228 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2005 15:57:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5200 invoked by uid 48); 18 Jul 2005 15:56:55 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050718155655.5198.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050429155408.21286.ralfixx@gmx.de> References: <20050429155408.21286.ralfixx@gmx.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/21286] [4.0/4.1 Regression] filebuf::xsgetn vs pipes X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg02244.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 15:56 ------- > Let's pronounce it [kəˈpʊt] then :-) > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kaput Yes. My point was simply that in order to have the attention of the maintainers you don't need to use exagerated expressions. Generally, technical explanations are much better for that. Overstating the issue is more suited to make someone nervous and, likely, obtain exactly the opposite effect. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21286