Dear Bruce,
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > What does this patch have to do with ACLs? Wasn't that Fabien's
> > previous patch?
>
> I thought it was used to read them somehow.
Yes, as for bit_* aggregates are concerned. However I still need them,
and they also have been asked for in the past. This functionnality cost
very little.
Rejecting aclitem accessors just means that I'll have to install them with
my package, hence the current discussion about providing all includes
files and so by default.
As for bool_and and bool_or are to provide standard functionnalities.
I did not need them, but I saw them in the standard (every/any/some),
thus I developed them next to the one I needed.
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
