Robert (and community):
All right, I'll bite. You say that the function
netsnmp_table_set_multi_add_default_row
specifies the default values of fields of a row, and that it does
not actually create a row. OK, OK. Yet, I still claim the naming
of the function is inappropriate. I would sugge
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:55:39 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>WC> However, as we should all know, the call to the function
>WC> netsnmp_table_set_multi_add_default_row creates the row, as a default.
>
>RStory replies:
>
>It seems we know different things. This does not add a row to the table
>at al
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:55:39 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WC> However, as we should all know, the call to the function
WC> netsnmp_table_set_multi_add_default_row creates the row, as a default.
It seems we know different things. This does not add a row to the table at all.
It defines the default
tion for this function exists. Also, tell
me why the index cannot be *completed* as part of the operation of the
function
netsnmp_table_set_multi_add_default_row
I argue that the default row should mean the row indexed by 1, in this case.
WRB
Original message
>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:35:22 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WC> In a similar fashion, I have added the .c and .h filed produced by the
WC> mib2c compiler for the tables of the 802dot11 MIB. I made no code changes,
WC> save the file name and associated references, as complained of in my
WC> earlier
