On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:07:18 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WC> >I didn't write the code, so I can only guess that flexibility was the
WC> >reason. Perhaps one might have different default rows for various cases.
WC>
WC> I did give some consideration to that notion, multiple default rows, but
WC>
>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 func
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 "dereferen
With some effort, one finds that the method of actually
creating a table row having field values corresponding
to defaults specified with a call to the function
netsnmp_table_set_multi_add_default_row
is a sequence of function calls, listed as follows
row = netsnmp_create_table_data_row();
