The fact that the other two posters in this thread had no idea what you were reporting is a pretty good indicator that something is wrong.
^ Wow, I read it and I understood it fine. And so did the other people Argv0.
the test timer is still in the active timers list, and hasn't expired, even though it's a 1ms timer. I'm thinking it's a timer initialization bug
^ The guy was agreeing.. stating that he got the same thing but explaining what can easily be read from Wims's post by the fact that he said it doesn't halt. If it doesn't halt, then it is obviously still active, is it not?
FroggieDaFrog also clearly understood it. If you thought they didn't, then it is only you who failed to understand and follow what was being said. Don't start calling other people inadequate and telling them they should add more detail when you're the only one that doesn't understand it. Perhaps run the code and see for yourself? The fact that you attempted to justify your complaint by stating that the other two people who DID understand it didn't suggests that you're either a clueless or just out to start an argument.
Unless you're of the belief that you can't be wrong, and everyone else is an idiot, I think you should be a little less defensive.
^ Putting words in his mouth so you can make another statement to try and put him down... It certainly looks like you're not trying to help anyone here. Besides, he wasn't being defensive, he was saying exactly what he had done.
I don't see any mention of the actual bug you were reporting, ie., the fact that "the test timer is still in the active timers list", and you made no mention of this in the reproduction steps, nor did you ask anyone to check this
Obviously if a timer doesn't halt, it is still active; you're just picking hairs. That being said, the bug he reported is obvious... the timer doesn't halt. Anyone with a brain stem can get that from his post. He pasted the code he used to get the result.. that is the reproduction steps.. you can't honestly say you didn't see it there. Lastly, why would he need to ask anyone? For all you know he did before posting it, you're assuming what you want to be the case - a very bad habit. But of course, you don't expect a personal invitation to execute it yourself do you? I mean, if you're this interested in it, surely you'd just copy/paste and execute it yourself?
And as for the 'expectation' toot, he clearly meant 'the author's intended result'. I certainly had no problem grasping what it meant, because of course having seen the code, I knew what it should do. If you don't understand the language, how are you justified in criticizing that aspect of it. Picking hairs and deliberately trying to put someone down with flawed reasoning and ignorance. You're clearly just being malicious which isn't helping anybody.
Yes that is an unexpected result Wims. You didn't have to point it out but you did so that it might be noted and ammended. I for one am not going to write an essay to discredit you for not going into the depth expected by an employer. Pointing out a bug as a USER of a program is not to be compared with someone who's reporting a bug for their profession.
