Message-Id: <200005302118.AAA13852@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:17:29 +0200
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200005301749.TAA27937@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Tue, 30 May 2000 19:49:08 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: LONG: fat32 diff in cvs
References:  <200005301749 DOT TAA27937 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
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

> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:49:08 +0200 (MET DST)
>
>      int _get_fs_type( const int drive
>                      , char *const result_str
>                  );
> 
> How do I make the ");" part align on "(
>                                       ,"?

Don't use TABs, and I think it will align.

Btw, Emacs automatically switches off the use of TABs in Texinfo mode,
for this very reason.

> > I suggest to put it with one of the functions, and make a cross-reference 
> > from others to that function.
> 
> I would rather put it in a separate part, if it's ok... Can I? How?

Invent a separate node, call it "FAT32 Intro", say, and tell the story
there.  Then put @xref's in the functions' docs to that node.

> > _get_fat_size and _get_fs_type seem to have similar functionality, no?
> > They surely return enough info to be able to distinguish FAT32 disks from 
> > the others, at least as far as I follow the docs.
> 
> No, I don't think so. The functions _is_fat32() and _get_fat_size() is
> very similar in function. But the _get_fs_type() function isn't
> necessarily so - it just takes whatever happens to be in a certain
> part of the disk; we are lucky it usually works out as FAT<something>
> for FAT partitions, but the specification clearly states that this
> string has nothing to do with the actual file system type (it advices
> against relying on this information). This would of course mean that
> _is_fat32() and _get_fat_size() break if this convention isn't adhered
> to, but what can we do...

Well, the above is the explanation that I think will help users to
understand what function to use in which case.  That's what I thought
was missing from the current docs.