16 Jul
2007
16 Jul
'07
1:17 p.m.
On 7/16/07, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
I found the accessors for these two types were rather odd. There were only accessors for pmdepmissing_t, but half of them were actually accessors for the pmdepend_t field in the pmdepmissing_t structure. I thought it would make more sense to have accessors for each fields, but I could be wrong, so I'll let you decide :)
From 8de572b00ee0a6a3fbf9cd115805bcb17910cf9a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chantry Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:08:48 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] new pmdepend_t / pmdepmissing_t accessors.
Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com>
This seems like as good of fix/cleanup as any until we get rid of some of these possibly extra unnecessary types. -Dan