One of the issues is the inconsitencies in typing/defintitions/etc. In most cases, we've taken care of the mixed includes, but there have been numerous cases of symbol conflicts in the past. I'm not necessarily sayings it's the best course, but since we've made significant efforts to use our own xdr stuff where possible, seems like it would be worthwhile to make it completely independent with no possibility of confusion as to what definitions/routines/etc. are being used.
-- Nathan On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 15:43, Jim Rees wrote: > Is there really a need to do this? I don't think there is any conflict in > semantics, as there is in snprintf, it's just a matter of not trying to use > both the system xdr.h and the openafs one at the same time, right? > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Neulinger EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-4841 UMR Information Technology Fax: (573) 341-4216 _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
