Connor Lane Smith <cls_AT_lubutu.com> writes:
> On 31 October 2011 12:27, Krnk Ktz <krnkktz_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>> What should be done about ii? Are there features requests? I mean, it is a
>> great concept and works very well as it is, doesn't it?
>
> It works well, but the source could do with a little cleaning up.
> There are some weird things, like fprintf(stderr, "%s", ...), no
> forward declarations, very few comments, for some reason it doesn't
> use stdio so has no buffering, etc.
I also think that it has some slight bugs with robustness (it should
attempt to reconnect if disconnected), but it is otherwise a very good
program, and I would be sad to see it go.
--
\ Troels
/\ Henriksen
Received on Mon Oct 31 2011 - 13:44:15 CET