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
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
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
Precedence: bulk

 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