Sébastien Tandel wrote: > I'm not sure it's really safe and cleaner since it's > working only because proto_item = proto_tree = proto_node ... > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 18:48, Luca Ceresoli > <[email protected]> wrote: > > my_tree = ptvcursor_add_text_with_subtree(cursor, ..,"foo"); > > my_item = proto_tree_get_parent(my_tree); > > /* ... */ > > proto_item_set_text(my_item, "<%s>", my_string);
Not sure I got your point. In proto.h, proto_tree_get_parent() is declared as taking a proto_tree* and returning a proto_item*, so I interpret it this way: proto_tree* X -> proto_item* Y -> proto_tree* Z then proto_tree_get_parent(Z) returns Y. Where am I wrong? Of course I am speaking from the "theoretical" and future-compatible POV. In the current practice the implementation of proto_tree_get_parent() is pretty eloquent. Luca ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
