[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [ldapext] VLV: absolute position of the list (negative offsets revisited)

To: <ldapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] VLV: absolute position of the list (negative offsets revisited)
From: "David Boreham" <david_list@boreham.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:22:43 -0700
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020926114427.045c7348@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20020926123813.045d27a8@127.0.0.1> <024b01c2659a$07a3cee0$160aa8c0@mtbrook.boreham.org>

> and gave up arguing the position which you are not advancing.

That should be ....position which you are _now_ advancing.



_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

References:
- [ldapext] VLV: absolute position of the list (negative offsets revisited)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: [ldapext] VLV: absolute position of the list (negative offsets revisited)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: [ldapext] VLV: absolute position of the list (negative offsets revisited)
  - From: "David Boreham" <david_list@boreham.org>

Prev by Date: Re: [ldapext] VLV: absolute position of the list (negative offsets revisited)
Next by Date: Re: [ldapext] VLV: a particular target entry
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread