Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20001212212358.025a9470@pop5.banet.net>
X-Sender: usbanet DOT farley3 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:33:12 -0500
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
From: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
Subject: RE: Locking fcntl changes #2
Cc: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
In-Reply-To: <NBBBIOJKJBNCHJBEKHLOEEEKCCAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1001212113000 DOT 24447N-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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
Precedence: bulk

At 06:49 PM 12/12/00 +0100, you wrote:
<Snipped>
 >> Why do we need the special __cplusplus case? Can't we always call
 >> that member errclass_str (and rename the other two to erraction_str 

 >> and errlocus_str)?
 >In fact, why is it there at all? Maybe the member was called `class'
 >once upon a time, but class_str isn't a problem for C++ (AFAIK).

All I was doing was copying the members of struct DOSERROR, and that is 
the way struct DOSERROR is defined.

As I said in my reply to Eli, I have no problem using "err..._str" 
names consistently, and eliminating the C++ variation.  But struct 
DOSERROR will still have that variation.

 > > +/* B5h (181) */ "(MS-DOS 7.0) A valid eject request failed",
 > > +/* B5h (181) */ "(DOS 5.0-6.0,NetWare4) Invalid call gate",
 > Same here.
 >But both are valid (and distinct) MS-DOS errors - which should
 >DJGPP support 'better' - DOS 5/6 or DOS 7?

These are just missed editing cases where I should have joined the 
strings, as I did in several other cases.  Easily fixed.

 > "dup" should have a @code markup, and please also add an @xref. 
Also,
 > we don't use the (n) notation for commands and functions (because 
the
 > references aren't man pages), so please remove "(2)" in the above.
I think he meant a call of dup() with a parameter of 2 (i.e. stdout).

No, that text was copied from a man page, so the (2) does refer to the 
man hierarchy.  It will be deleted.

Thanks for the comments.

---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org OR
                      pjfarley AT banet DOT net)