Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:26:43 AM -0500 Jim Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm opposed to nested includes because it makes it difficult to diagnose
include ordering violations but I realize that's a losing battle.
Nested includes are fine for cases where th
When you say "it's wrong" what are you talking about? The missing include,
the proposed fix, the fix that was applied, or my statement about nested
includes?
Your patch went in exactly as you wanted. It didn't work on bsd and other
traditional unix platforms but I fixed it. Does my fix not work
On Thursday, March 16, 2006 09:47:18 AM +0100 Rainer Toebbicke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I showed you what the problem is and how one could fix it, done so in
numerous occasions in the past. As explained, afsutil.h looked attractive
as it leaves the option open to switch everything to afs_i
