Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20001215204715.032b27e0@pop5.banet.net>
X-Sender: usbanet DOT farley3 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:48:20 -0500
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
From: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
Subject: Re: Locking fcntl changes #2
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001214113107.25353B-100000@is>
References: <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001213202344 DOT 00a512f0 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
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 11:31 AM 12/14/00 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
 >On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Peter J. Farley III wrote:
 >>  >EACCES is too ubiquitous on DOS, so I'd prefer EAGAIN.
 >> I must respectfully disagree.  Isn't EACCES a much better 
description
 >> of a locking error than EAGAIN?  EACCES may be too common, but 
aren't
 >> locking violations exactly what EACCES was intended to describe?
 >
 >It's arguable: locking violations mean both EACCES and EAGAIN.
 >But I don't see any reason to argue about this.  If you prefer 
EACCES,
 >so be it.

Thank you.  EACCES it is.

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