On Wednesday 17 September 2003 19:49, Paul Keogh wrote: > > (if we start to _hack_ the code in such order, then we doesn't need > > And now to these '-1' values. At first it's inconsistent to > > have -1 values > > only for sms values. If we want to have '-1' == UNDEF then > > _all_ message > > types should use it and not only sms and I do not see any > > goal to have these? > > Agreed. It should be either 0 or -1 for all Msgs. > > > am I wrong? then please explain why -1 should be better as 0 (zero)? > > Only one thing I can see is: sendsms interface can use sms > > values (e.g. > > mclass) as is (0-3). > > > > So (imo) we have 2 options: > > 1) make all message types consistent, means using -1 as > > UNDEF values > > 2) get rid of -1 UNDEF values for sms message type. > > > > > > Comments and votes please.... > > -1 unless there is a *very* good reason.
I cannot follow you here... -1 as vote? then for what 1) or 2) or 3) (that we not know at this point in time;)) ? -- Best regards / Mit besten Grüßen aus Düsseldorf Dipl.-Ing. Alexander Malysh ___________________________________________ Centrium GmbH Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 Düsseldorf Fon: +49 (0211) 74 84 51 80 Fax: +49 (0211) 277 49 109 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.centrium.de msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] icq: 98063111 ___________________________________________ Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
