Subj : Re: Implementing A* algorithm To : comp.programming From : CBFalconer Date : Thu Jul 21 2005 10:18 pm Chris Sonnack wrote: > CBFalconer writes: > >> When I made the reply I was not looking at the original post or my >> reply thereto. Why should I, or anyone else, need to do so? > > Because amUSENET is a web of *interconnected* posts, that's why. > > They are *pieces* of a conversation. I think it's foolish to require > or expect otherwise. Threads have been a part of amUSENET for a very > long time. If you choose to ignore that aspect of things, fine, that > is your choice. I think the rest of us are probably fine looking > upthread if we're interested and just ignoring it if we're not. Well, actually hereabouts there is often no such thing as a previous set to be looked at. One possibility is that the sender has been PLONKED. Another is that I have done a periodic cleanout of the group storage [1]. A third is that the item in question never arrived here. Besides which, it just is not convenient to hunt back in a thread for a previous item, and then return to the present one. At any rate the subject isn't really worth all this who-flung-dung. [1] Netscape 4.7x (which is still the better news/mail reader to me) has the fault of storing incoming messages in an index file. Even when the messages are expired, the file is never properly compacted, and grows without bounds. This applies to off-line reading and synchronization, which I use. The cure is to periodically delete those files. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address! .