Stig Bj�rlykke wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Alexis La Goutte
<alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I based my change on the previous revision of jmayer (rev36724) in this file
and there is the same mistake !
Hmm, after a closer look I find that proto_item_add_subtree() returns
the input parameter, so we have no real bug here.
But this raises a question why we have to use the return value from
proto_item_add_subtree() for the tree, as proto_item and proto_tree
are the same... I think the cleanest solution is to use the return
value, as this is done elsewhere and the implementation of
proto_item_add_subtree() may change. Comments?
Isn't the theory that, while proto_item is currently the same as
proto_tree, that could eventually (need to) change?
