Managing DNs in libads only in utf8
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Tue Feb 27 14:35:48 GMT 2007
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 09:25:56AM -0500, simo wrote:
> The difference is that if you do b_dn = a_dn at least you get something
> consistent in this case. With char I guess you get simply a truncated
> string. But it is a detail, and we should never assign it that way in
> any case.
True. Jeremy will definitely call for C++ here :-)
From my point of view this is another argument against the
typedef. A struct might help the programmer to think twice
before assigning it.
> If char is valid and is C99 can we use it? Or are we still trying not
> to require C99 in samba3 ?
As I said in the comment: This would be a trivial and
isolated change which we can decide upon later. I'd rather
not do it for the first run.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20070227/809276d9/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical