Wes Hardaker wrote: > [Re: lack of comments regarding the proposed abstract table API] > >Dave> Not very surprising, I suppose - seems to be par for the course >Dave> nowadays - but definitely disappointing. > >We're getting much more into a mode of you do this, I do that and we >trust each other I think. > It's not really a matter of trust. I wasn't expecting any disagreement over the idea of having a clearly defined set of operations for working with tables. What I was asking for was some additional input over what those operations should *cover*. I'd listed everything I could think of, but was sure that I'd have missed something. (Correctly, since it turned out that some mechanism for comparing row indexes was needed). The lack of that input is what I was bemoaning - not a detailed nit-pick of the exact code for this particular helper.
I note that Robert has now responded on that thread - Thanks, Robert. I'll give it a proper reply on Monday. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
