Re: in_avail() bug. Nobody cares??

[David Rasmussen <pinkfloydhomer at yahoo dot com>]

On Monday 29 October 2001 17:31, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 11:49:45AM +0100, David Rasmussen wrote:
>
> > Again, I am not complaining. I am asking a question, that is, I am
> > seeking information. Note that nobody has actually answered my question,
> > which is a fair one.
>
> You have submitted this as a PR more than once.  I have answered your
> question more than once:  We have a finite amount of developer time.
> This bug "hasn't got any more attention" because we only have so much time
> to give.
>

I understand that. I am not asking anybody to spend any more time on it. I am 
trying to figure out what the "community" thinks about this bug, if it is 
indeed a bug, why it is hard to fix etc.

> What kind of "attention" do you want?  Yes, it's a bug.  Yes, I have an
> idea to fix it.  Yes, I hope to have time to get it done soon.  The more

Thanks. This is the kind of information I was seeking. But when I first asked 
the question a week ago, no one answered at all. So I thought: "Why doesn't 
anybody care? Isn't this a bug at all? Is a solution in the works? Will this 
be solved soon or not?" etc. So I asked why nobody cared.

> time we waste answering emails, the less time we have to actually fix the
> bug.
>

So it's my fault now?! :)

I have tried to "fix" the code I have that uses in_avail(), by doing 
pubsetbuf(0,0) to make it not use a buffer at all. I hoped that this would 
make in_avail() return 0 everytime, and immediately. But the same thing 
happens. Any ideas?