Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:56:39 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: An implementation of /dev/zero for DJGPP
In-Reply-To: <200012262257.RAA24655@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001227095410.8380F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, DJ Delorie wrote:

> > It doesn't?  I've seen gobs of programs which depend on the fact it
> > does.
> 
> It doesn't.  It returns the number of bytes read, not the number you
> asked for.  They don't have to match.  Network sockets are *notorious*
> for returning less than you asked for.  So is stdin.  A temporary EOF
> causes this also (i.e. someone else writes to the file while you're
> reading from it).

These are all cases where something unexpected happened.  The case in 
point is not one of those.  I don't think we should create a problem 
where none exists, just to diagnose a large argument.