From: Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id: <200103140802.JAA08808@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: zero fill the eof gap (complete patch)
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 101 09:02:36 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <3AAE5E4E.7854.1F00B2@localhost> from "Mark E." at Mar 13, 1 05:52:14 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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

> 
> > Why is it called "FILE_DESC_FILL_TEST" (the TEST part)?
> 
> I called it that because the fill routine must test if the gap needs filling. 
> I'm not very happy with the name, but I've yet to come up with one that's 
> descriptive and short. If I can't, I'll just come up with one that's 
> descriptive.

Ok. I think TEST gives the wrong idea, but I see the problem (finding
a good name).

It's
"FILE_DESCRIPTOR_FILL_FILE_WITH_ZEROS_IF_SEEKING_BEYOND_END_OF_FILE"
or something like that that we mean, right?

I have no strong objections against the current name, but maybe
"FILE_DESC_MAYBE_FILL" is better?


Right,

						MartinS