Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2000/06/09/14:56:43
> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:07:05 +0200 (MET DST)
>
> > Well, the above is the explanation that I think will help users to
> > understand what function to use in which case. That's what I thought
> > was missing from the current docs.
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure how or where I should put that in.
One way of doing this would be to put that on one of the functions'
descriptions, and then xref from the others.
> As a matter of fact, thinking about it, I think it would be better to
> improve each function's description so the user would know if a
> certain function is what he wants. Wouldn't it?
That is certainly another possibility.
> Meanwhile you can look at the diff of wc204.txi. I'm open to
> suggestions to make it better.
I have some ;-)
> ! @findex _creat AT r{, FAT32}
I suggest ", and FAT32" or ", on FAT32 volumes". Try to imagine how
the entry will look like in the index itself, that usually helps to
find the best wording.
> ! @findex _creatnew AT r{, FAT32}
> ! @findex _open AT r{, FAT32}
> ! Set extended size flag in interrupt calls to be able to create files
> ! with size up to 2^32-1.
And here you have the opposite problem: the index entries are stripped
and don't appear in the Info file, so the user is left with a sentence
that doesn't really explain to what it refers:
Set extended size flag in interrupt calls to be able to create files
with size up to 2^32-1.
I suggest this instead:
The functions @code{_creat}, @code{_creatnew}, and @code{_open} now
set extended size flag in DOS calls to be able to create files with
size up to 2^32-1, supported on FAT32 volumes.
The other entries have the same problems: if you take away the index
entries, they become unclear.
- Raw text -