On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:14:09 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WC> I question the wisdom of requiring the function parameter to be WC> as specified. It seems more reasonable to pass *table_set* as WC> the parameter, instead of its element *default_row* being passed, WC> especially when the "dereference" can be easily accomplished from WC> within the function. Perhaps the developers will describe their WC> reason for making their particular choice, as opposed to the WC> alternative that I favor.
I didn't write the code, so I can only guess that flexibility was the reason. Perhaps one might have different default rows for various cases. WC> One other observation can be made from the output of the command WC> WC> /usr/local/bin/snmpwalk -v 2c -c public2 localhost .1 WC> WC> Specifically, note the odd order of reference in the output of the WC> walk. I would have expected that the rows would come in order. WC> Instead, it seems that walk control is exerted by the columns. WC> WC> Do any readers understand why the observed order is generated, as WC> opposed to the suggested order? Yes. The order is specified in the SNMP standards. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-users> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
