I don't know why those changes exactly were made, but I agree with them.
The C++ parser consistently uses unsigned values if unsigned is what is
being modelled. So he may have changed them in order to avoid having to
cast so much in and out? He's in a multi-day W3C meeting, but hopefully he
can respond when its over.
----------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Software Weenie
IBM Center for Java Technology - Silicon Valley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David_N_Bertoni@lotus.com on 01/26/2000 03:24:28 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: *::item() and *::getLength()
In the C++ DOM APIs.
Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 01/26/2000 05:25:40 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: David N Bertoni/CAM/Lotus)
Subject: Re: *::item() and *::getLength()
In the Java or C++ parser, and which APIs are we talking about exactly, DOM
or SAX or what?
----------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Software Weenie
IBM Center for Java Technology - Silicon Valley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David_N_Bertoni@lotus.com on 01/26/2000 02:11:38 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: *::item() and *::getLength()
Maybe I missed the email that explained this, but why did the formal
parameter of the various item() functions change from int to unsigned long?
This (silently) broke a bunch of the Xalan code.
Given that it _was_ changed, why wasn't getLength() changed to return an
unsigned long? It seems inconsistent.
Dave
