svn commit: samba r18030
- in branches/SAMBA_3_0/source/tdb/common: .
Gerald (Jerry) Carter
jerry at samba.org
Tue Sep 5 12:22:51 GMT 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> So that means most of the nested structures we use
> can just stay, and we would only need move the definitions
> of named structs out of the nesting. And I think that
> would be ok.
Thanks metze. (volker just explained the same thing
to me to in another mail).
Named structures really should be nested anyways IMO.
The wayI see it, the only reason to nest structure
definitions is to show the scope of a structure in
Even if this was legal C++ code, I would probably
want to see it rewritten to make the scope clearer.
Samba ------- http://www.samba.org
Centeris ----------- http://www.centeris.com
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?" --Balian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the samba-technical