On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:17:00PM -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Which is equivalent to saying -- with or without RFC 2119 -- that
success (2) and temporary failure (4) in conjunction with the
remainder of the code is *not* useful.
No. The author writes that at the time of writing he can see no use
for that message and code other than for a permanent error. He expressly
does not forbid it (indicated by no use of RFC 2119 syntax).
If I now design a bottle opener and write "it is only useful for opening
bottles" and someone finds out that it is also perfect to screw a
certain nut in a XYZ car where is the problem? Is he not allowed to use
the bottle opener for screwing the nut because I said it is only useful
for opening bottles?
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"