Re: Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- From: "Richard Cornford" <Richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:39:30 -0000
VK wrote:
<snip>
> ECMA docs are based on the description of Netscape 4.?
> (don't remember - 4.5 or something) They have something
> atop of 1.2 and something missing from 1.3 (minus all
> Netscape stuff ECMA considered to be not enough academical).
> So it's kind of 1.2+/- or 1.3-- :-)
<snip>
I realise that you consider the stories in your head as more true than
anything else, but do you really think that it does anyone any good at
all for you to be posting this pack of lies?
Richard.
.
- References:
- Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- From: tydbowl
- Re: Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- From: VK
- Re: Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- From: VK
- Re: Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- From: tydbowl
- Re: Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- From: VK
- Re: Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- From: tydbowl
- Re: Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- From: VK
- Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- Prev by Date: Re: Protected static members, abstract classes, object composition vs. subclassing
- Next by Date: Re: "enum" is a reserved word in JScript
- Previous by thread: Re: Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- Next by thread: Re: Handle Leaks with Microsoft.XMLDOM
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|