search for: unjustified

...in which one of the methods leads to exactly this warning: http://www.bioinf.jku.at/people/bodenhofer/codocMismatchTest_0.0.1.tar.gz Just run 'R CMD check' on this archive and you'll see. You will also see from the code and the corresponding documentation that the warning seems unjustified. I tried the following R versions: 2.12.1, 2.13.0, 2.13.1, 2.14.0, 2.14.1, 2.15.0, 2.15.1, 2.15.2, 2.16.0 (devel), and all consistently gave the same warning. Is this a bug or is there a special reason for this behavior? Any help is gratefully appreciated! Thanks in advance and best regards, U...

...in which one of the methods leads to exactly this warning: http://www.bioinf.jku.at/people/bodenhofer/codocMismatchTest_0.0.1.tar.gz Just run 'R CMD check' on this archive and you'll see. You will also see from the code and the corresponding documentation that the warning seems unjustified. I tried the following R versions: 2.12.1, 2.13.0, 2.13.1, 2.14.0, 2.14.1, 2.15.0, 2.15.1, 2.15.2, 2.16.0 (devel), and all consistently gave the same warning. Is this a bug or is there a special reason for this behavior? Any help is gratefully appreciated! Thanks in advance and best regards, U...

...2> in >>> finalize 3> by wrapping all DIE constructions in a CU. >>> >>> I am wondering whether we should make the type uniquing patches depend >>> on the invariants/assumptions. >>> >> >> If the alternative is introducing defensive and unjustified/untested >> complexity, yes - we must. We cannot tolerate introducing unjustified >> complexity into the codebase - it's the only way we can strive to move the >> code in a maintainable direction (I contend that it's not maintainable at >> the moment and it isn't...

...nalize 3> by wrapping all DIE constructions in a CU. >>>> >>>> I am wondering whether we should make the type uniquing patches depend >>>> on the invariants/assumptions. >>>> >>> >>> If the alternative is introducing defensive and unjustified/untested >>> complexity, yes - we must. We cannot tolerate introducing unjustified >>> complexity into the codebase - it's the only way we can strive to move the >>> code in a maintainable direction (I contend that it's not maintainable at >>> the moment...

...erify 1> in addDIEEntry, 2> in finalize >> 3> by wrapping all DIE constructions in a CU. >> >> I am wondering whether we should make the type uniquing patches depend on >> the invariants/assumptions. >> > > If the alternative is introducing defensive and unjustified/untested > complexity, yes - we must. We cannot tolerate introducing unjustified > complexity into the codebase - it's the only way we can strive to move the > code in a maintainable direction (I contend that it's not maintainable at > the moment and it isn't because of chan...

...the ConstructedDIEs, we can verify 1> in addDIEEntry, 2> in finalize > 3> by wrapping all DIE constructions in a CU. > > I am wondering whether we should make the type uniquing patches depend on > the invariants/assumptions. > If the alternative is introducing defensive and unjustified/untested complexity, yes - we must. We cannot tolerate introducing unjustified complexity into the codebase - it's the only way we can strive to move the code in a maintainable direction (I contend that it's not maintainable at the moment and it isn't because of changes like this - addi...

...all DIE constructions in a CU. >>>>> >>>>> I am wondering whether we should make the type uniquing patches depend >>>>> on the invariants/assumptions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If the alternative is introducing defensive and unjustified/untested >>>> complexity, yes - we must. We cannot tolerate introducing unjustified >>>> complexity into the codebase - it's the only way we can strive to move the >>>> code in a maintainable direction (I contend that it's not maintainable at >>>...

...n a CU. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am wondering whether we should make the type uniquing patches >>>>>> depend on the invariants/assumptions. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If the alternative is introducing defensive and unjustified/untested >>>>> complexity, yes - we must. We cannot tolerate introducing unjustified >>>>> complexity into the codebase - it's the only way we can strive to move the >>>>> code in a maintainable direction (I contend that it's not maintainable at...

...terms are present, first degree coefficients mean 'the slope of the curve at temperature zero', so a non-significant value does not mean that the linear term is not needed. Removing the non-significant linear term for the 'after' group, for example, would be unjustified." AFAIK, t-test for significance of a coefficient is not based on the assumption that the variables of the linear model are "independent". What if I only got the model matrix X and I don't know, that one column is simply the square of another: Do I have to examine the model...

...that a DIE is added to an owner in DwarfDebug, I don't think > we should try to enforce that DwarfDebug will add the DIE to the CU that > constructed the DIE earlier. > My claim is that this is already an invariant. That the code you are adding is never needed and thus is additional, unjustified/unused complexity that comes at a cost to all future developers/development. This codebase needs /much/ less of this than it already has, let alone adding more of it. Though I wouldn't mind an assertion, I suspect it'll be more code than is really worth it to keep track of this information/...

...uk/1/hi/england/london/3686992.stm ). Clearly, given the fact that Digium contributes so much to Asterisk, they shouldn't be forced to risk their company's future by hosting these mailing lists in such an unstable environment where they could get sued for any ridiculous reason. Even an unjustified, ambit claim could generate huge defence costs on Digium's part, and cripple their ability to contribute to Asterisk. Therefore, it seems to be in the best interests of Asterisk's `security' to have the mailing lists hosted by someone other than Digium and maybe in a country that d...

...client. That seems great but I''m wary of using Flash at all partly because I don''t know much about it and partly because I believe in sticking to webstandards like HTML, CSS and JavaScript. A future cell phone is more likely to have these three than having Flash. Are these worries unjustified? Will Rails sites using armageddon have to pay money to Macromedia? How many months until armageddon is available? Thanks, Peter

All that being said, I'm asking these questions because I don't know for sure - but that we cannot add unjustified complexity, we must understand why it is there and have tests to demonstrate its necessity. So to play some Devil's Advocate - how does your patch handle the following situation: hdr.h: struct foo { template<typename T> struct bar { }; }; src1.cpp: #include "hdr.h" foo...

...owner in DwarfDebug, I don't >> think we should try to enforce that DwarfDebug will add the DIE to the CU >> that constructed the DIE earlier. >> > > My claim is that this is already an invariant. That the code you are > adding is never needed and thus is additional, unjustified/unused > complexity that comes at a cost to all future developers/development. This > codebase needs /much/ less of this than it already has, let alone adding > more of it. Though I wouldn't mind an assertion, I suspect it'll be more > code than is really worth it to keep track...

...'everything to > llvm-commits' workflow myself in a couple weeks when my urgent work is > finished. I have some reservations about that workflow but I'm willing to > try it to see if my concerns are justified or not. > Not knowing your concerns, I'd say they are mostly unjustified ;) > Manuel: I'm aware of one other way for a review to be invisible to > llvm-commits despite being CC'd. If you forget to CC llvm-commits when > creating the differential revision and add it later in the web interface, > Phabricator doesn't send an email to the list. Add...

...Better error message in case of TSIG error. - Bugfix #485: TTL should not be greater than 2^31 - 1. - Fix RCODE when CNAME loop final answer does not exist, should return NXDOMAIN as stated by RFC 6604. - Fix --disable-full-prehash bug, where after multiple incoming IXFRs, NSEC3 can be removed unjustified. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 553 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/nsd-users/attachments/20130204/398d2770/attachment.bin>

Thanks, Tomas, Luke, for the clarifications. Then, I have another question. But first, let me introduce how I ended up here, because obviously I just don't go around dyn.unloading things that I've just compiled. I was testing a package with valgrind. Everything ok, no leaks. Great. But I'm always suspicious (probably unjustifiably) of all the memory that is reported as "still

...>>> >>>>>>> I am wondering whether we should make the type uniquing patches >>>>>>> depend on the invariants/assumptions. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If the alternative is introducing defensive and unjustified/untested >>>>>> complexity, yes - we must. We cannot tolerate introducing unjustified >>>>>> complexity into the codebase - it's the only way we can strive to move the >>>>>> code in a maintainable direction (I contend that it's not main...

...>>> >>>>>>> I am wondering whether we should make the type uniquing patches >>>>>>> depend on the invariants/assumptions. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If the alternative is introducing defensive and unjustified/untested >>>>>> complexity, yes - we must. We cannot tolerate introducing unjustified >>>>>> complexity into the codebase - it's the only way we can strive to move the >>>>>> code in a maintainable direction (I contend that it's not main...

On 01/23/2015 04:05 PM, Always Learning wrote: > On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 21:19 -0500, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: > >> I object to this sort of crap. Hidden, no reason for an *IX desktop to >> be forced to ignore or deal with this crap. >> >> Anybody else seeing it? >> >> In case attachments aren't allowed in the list, here's the Dropbox url >>