From: Till A. <ti...@ad...> - 2002-02-09 11:21:01
|
# Quoting Christian Kreibich (kre...@in...): > I like it. Raster, I noticed you had added similar fields to some of the > dbs, but the other way round, like /type/bits = 1. Was that for a > particular reason? Did you want to be able to combine types in one db? I was just thinking about that also, while looking at the patch. Maybe it would make sense to have the type be a bitfield, so that one db file can contain bg information as well as bits or whatever. The individual entries would maybe need to be prefixed then, though. It would then not be hard to merge /split dbs for distribution. I agree with cK that their should be an interface to the type system in some way. Oh, and Mike, I think we all prefer unified diff format on this project. So diff -u would be better for next time. Thanks for the patch, it is appreciated :). Cheers, Till |