Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!qantel!lynx
From: lynx@qantel.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207)
Newsgroups: net.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: bug in ctype.c, and a replacement for it
Message-ID: <730@qantel.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Oct-86 14:13:24 EST
Article-I.D.: qantel.730
Posted: Mon Oct 27 14:13:24 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Oct-86 06:40:14 EST
References: <725@qantel.UUCP> <2405@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: lynx@qantel.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207)
Organization: MDS Qantel, Hayward, CA
Lines: 61
Keywords: ctype, bugs, author

In article <2405@j.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Wombat) writes:
>In article <725@qantel.UUCP> lynx@qantel.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207) writes:
>>The character classification program "ctype.c" recently posted to the net
>>has a bug in it:  the headings for the columns are in the wrong order.
>>
>>I decided that what I wanted was a complete count of all characters, not
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>just those below octal 200, so I put together a replacement for it, ccount.c,
>>which I've posted to net.sources.
>
>Four things; first off, it is common courtesy to report such bugs in
>posted software to the author *first*, thus giving that author the
>opportunity to correct them in whatever way the author feels best.
>There are exceptions--for instance, truly nasty bugs in important
>pieces of software.  This is not one of those cases.
>
>Secondly, you do not specify what the "correct" order would be, or
>why the given order is "wrong".

(The "correct" order is a matter of what the user decides is "right".)

>
>Thirdly, if you had bothered to correspond with the author (me), you
>would have discovered that the author had already received a number
>of suggestions about the program, one of which was to add the codes
>above octal 200 [optionally].
>
>Finally, even though you used nearly all my code in your program, you
>make no mention of that in the source.  Fine--you don't *have* to;
>but if I wrote a program that whose concept was completely derived from
>another, and whose source code was almost completely taken from another,
>I'd acknowledge the original author.  I think most folks on Usenet
>would do the same.  I'm amazed and appalled at your actions in this matter.
>
>-- 
>Rich Kulawiec, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu

Well, thanks for the flames ...

By the time I'd gotten around to trying the code you'd posted I had lost
a return path to you, this makes it difficult to correspond.

As you may, or may not, have noticed, the code posted was what I found
that I needed, not intended to be "general", and posted as a quick fix
to what I got from the net.  Yes, it is a modified version of your code,
an I do apologize for not having attributed it to you.  That was an
unfortunate oversight which I regret occurred.

As to pointing out the error in your posting, that was partly the intent
of my posting.  If I had had your return path I would have indeed sent you
a note first.

Perhaps the next time I encounter bugs in posted code I will simply keep the
corrections to myself and avoid the flames.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
D.N. Lynx Crowe {dual, hplabs, lll-crg, ptsfa}!qantel!lynx
----------------------------------------------------------
"Just say 'No' -- to Government"
----------------------------------------------------------