Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 21:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: Ed Freeberg <barnew AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: protected mode
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980412115116.3322H-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980417215054.1273E-100000@unixbox.bitbucket.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Nate Eldredge wrote:
> 
> > Unfortunately, there's no `_farmemset'... grr. So what you have is fine.
> > [Suggestion: Could one be added? I'll write it :)]
> 
> It is probably a good idea to add the whole slew of `_fmemXXX' and
> `_fstrXXX' functions, not only `_fmemset' (things like `_fmemcpy' and
> `_fstrlen', for example).

Yes, I agree.

> 
> It is not clear to me whether they should assume _dos_ds or allow a
> selector as well.  Compatibility seems to suggest the former, but far
> pointers have an entirely different meaning in DJGPP, so I'm not sure
> compatibility applies here (it might even confuse people and cause
> bugs).

IMHO, we should perhaps follow the naming convention we've already got.
`_farmemXXX', as opposed to `_fmemXXX', is longer, but it fits the
established scheme and might even prevent the aforementioned confusion,
since it will be obvious it's a different function.

Okay, I'll work on this over the next few days.
 


Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com