Sascha Schumann wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Jim Winstead wrote:
> > > 
> > > Is there any reason we couldn't replace the dbm_* functions with
> > > the new dba_* stuff? Seems silly to keep both around when the
> > > dba_* stuff looks like a superset of the dbm_* stuff to me.
> > > 
> > 
> > Are the docs for the dba_ stuff available?
> > 
> 
> Yes. Look at the documentation.
> 

Yeah. Just did :)

The one thing I seem to recall (I'll check later today and tomorrow)
is that dba_open did not support the 'c' open (r/w but no truncate
if the file exists) and ./configure didn't correctly determine when
using db1.x and not db2.x. Also, when using ndbm as implemented by
db, that was broken too. Haven't tried for several weeks so that
may be fixed.

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   |||   jim@jaguNET.com   |||   http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"