On 12 March 2013 14:05, Xiaofan Chen <xiaof...@gmail.com> wrote: >> * libusb_resetep > Not implemented yet. > Ref: https://github.com/libusbx/libusbx/issues/18
Seems no-one is interested. :( >> * libusb_handle_events_check > This is probably an extension by Graeme. Seems to be discussed in http://www.libusb.org/ticket/56 >> * libusb_strerror > Not implemented yet. > Ref: https://github.com/libusbx/libusbx/issues/14 > Graeme was using an older implemetation which > was not accepted into libusb-1.0 or libusbx. Surely this is a no-brainer to add such a simple thing to libusbx? > As per his post to libusb-win32 mailing list, he will > probably drop libusb-1.0A support and use his own > USB implementation in the future Shouldn't this trigger some kind of alarm in the libusbx project? I mean, if users like Graeme are dropping libusb for something hand-rolled because it's not suitable, what's the point in libusbx? Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
