On Tue Aug 21 2012 Roland Winkler wrote: > On Tue Aug 21 2012 Leo wrote: > > bbdb-record-x tells me it is about extensions. Additionally, fields > > contained in x become meaningful, such as bbdb-record-x-uid, > > bbdb-record-set-x-uid etc. That is clarify that can not be attained > > otherwise. Just some random thoughts. > > The way BBDB works it does not have functions for individual fields > such as bbdb-record-set-x-uid, and it does not need them.
Kind of natural would be `xfield' instead of `x' as a name for the *list* of extra (custom) fields of a record. Certainly this matches the lingo that both Leo and I used above. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ bbdb-info@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bbdb-info BBDB Home Page: http://bbdb.sourceforge.net/
