On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 09:25:54AM +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Rich,
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:33 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
+#define virConfNew() (_virConfNew())
I wouldn't bother doing this, it just adds confusion - e.g. it helps to
know that the symbol is private
Hi Rich,
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:33 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
+#define virConfNew() (_virConfNew())
I wouldn't bother doing this, it just adds confusion - e.g. it helps to
know that the symbol is private from the calling site too, so just use
_virConfNew() everywhere ...
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Rich,
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:33 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
+#define virConfNew() (_virConfNew())
I wouldn't bother doing this, it just adds confusion - e.g. it helps to
know that the symbol is private from the calling site too, so just use
Second version of that patch.
Rich.
--
Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
64 Baker Street, London, W1U 7DF Mobile: +44 7866 314 421
[Negative numbers] darken the very whole doctrines of the equations
and make dark of the things which are in their nature
