On Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:26:43 AM -0500 Jim Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm opposed to nested includes because it makes it difficult to diagnose
include ordering violations but I realize that's a losing battle.
Nested includes are fine for cases where there are actual dependencies.
And there are arguments to be made both ways for software that uses the
model where every source file includes some common header that's expected
to include all the required system headers. Outside of the cache manager,
AFS mostly does not use that model. It seems to me that it is
inappropriate to add a new #include to afsutil.h which does not satisfy a
dependency of that header, rather than modifying the affected source files.
I actually wonder why hardly anybody uses the '%I' format instead
which util/snprintf.c understands - perhaps because a move to IPv6 (if
ever) would be more complicated?
No, it wouldn't. Both %I and inet_ntoa render ASCII representations of
IPv4 addresses expressed as network-order integers.
I suspect snprintf was added after most of these callers were written to
use inet_ntoa. They could safely be changed now but no one has bothered.
Yup. That snprintf, and its support of %I, are both relatively new to
OpenAFS.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
