On 2012.05.11 19:08, Peter Stuge wrote: > This means taking some risks > ..as opposed to erring on the side of caution
And you'll be free to take risks and live on the edge, for what is really a minor detail not worth spending much time on, when/if you carry the API in libusb. Your suggestion has been heard, and, as ever, I'm puzzled as to why you're trying to blow such a minor API item out of proportion, just to attempt to get "your way" in a project that had to fork precisely because of this behaviour. > I think it's too limited for the API to be worthwhile. It introduces > a unique restriction not seen previously in the libusb API. Well, if people vote to have get_parent to be removed from the public API because they see it too limiting, and we don't get user requests otherwise in the meantime, I don't have a problem keeping it private and reviewing its introduction to the public API once we have hotplug and an overhauled enum. But that only applies to get_parent. Regards, /Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
