On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I'd like to wrap up 3.1.2 before too long, because there
> have been a lot of bug fixes since 3.1.1. I think I backported most non-DB
> changes from 3.2 to 3.1.2 now, but there was the whole Makefile include
> business that I wasn't sure about. If you think it's an appropriate
> bug fix for 3.1.2, could you put it in?
It's not a big deal, but it's a bit of a pain to backport (because it
requires a whole bunch of stuff). It lets the makefiles work with Berkeley
make. I would lean towards leaving it out because no onre complains much
about it and it would require hitting every makefile.
> I was also wondering about this last change to htdig.cc in 3.1.2:
..
> Is there an advantage to doing this rather than testing excludes.hasPattern()
> before doing a excludes.FindFirst()? I was wondering why in some cases,
> one approach is used, and in other cases, another is used.
No, there isn't a real advantage. Using excludes.hasPattern() is probably
more elegant, but I was doing the equivalent of the advice I give everyone
else--never set exclude_urls to null, set it to something that could never
occur.
I'll switch it. If you know of *other* occurences where this happens,
please let me know.
-Geoff
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the single word "unsubscribe" in
the SUBJECT of the message.
