delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com> |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:45:03 -0500 |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Subject: | Re: zero fill the eof gap (complete patch) |
Message-ID: | <3AAF67CF.3413.4D4BFB@localhost> |
In-reply-to: | <200103140802.JAA08808@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> |
References: | <3AAE5E4E DOT 7854 DOT 1F00B2 AT localhost> from "Mark E." at Mar 13, 1 05:52:14 pm |
X-mailer: | Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
I have no strong objections against the current name, but maybe > "FILE_DESC_MAYBE_FILL" is better? > How about FILE_DESC_ZEROFILL_GAP? I like the "maybe" (in place of TEST) and "zero" (since it says what kind of fill) so I like: FILE_DESC_MAYBE_ZERO_FILL_GAP It's a little longer than I prefer, but it's clearer than what I have now. Mark
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |