[cifs-protocol] Bitfields

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 12:31 +1100, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> The bitfield formatting is indeed frustrating! It should be easy to
> fix though.

> Can someone from Microsoft comment on whether they think that this
> would be possible?
> 
>  > Presented apparently with the sole intention of increasing programmer
>  > frustration
> 
> I think 'intention' is a bit strong :-)

Probably, without knowing Microsoft's mind, but from the outside it
looks like a programmer was not involved (or was, but not heard) in
designing this particular aspect of documentation format. 

> It certainly is done quite badly with many of the tables, but I don't
> think there was any intention to make it bad, it is just that as
> implementors we run across this poor layout more than the
> documentation writers.

I suppose - but surely even Microsoft's own testers can't find this easy
to use!  

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.                  http://redhat.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/cifs-protocol/attachments/20081111/de4e3d76/attachment.bin