Managing DNs in libads only in utf8

Volker Lendecke 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[1] 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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list