On 10/12/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > > WORSE you just f***ed up the user who chose a different order for their > > includes, which sucks to be them. Please don't do such nonsense to them. > > Belay that assessment, I see you snuck this in after the header protect > macro ;-) > > It's still not acceptable to add apr_ino_t until 1.3.0 no matter how it's > hidden. >
It's not added. it's present in apr_file_info.h since 1.2.0 > I had gone so far as to offer no outward facing explanation of the 1.3.0 > solution to win32 handles, but they could pass a constant which would > achieve the effect. That too was vetoed, so we simply won't add a new > interface no matter how cloaked it is :) > > Bill >
