Message-ID:	<00d301c154a5$510f9fc0$ef1924d5@zephyr>
From:	"Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou AT libertysurf DOT fr>
To:	"DJGPP workers" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References:	<10110111357 DOT AA18726 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <006601c15277$3736ab00$d27824d5 AT zephyr> <1659-Thu11Oct2001211157+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <00d901c152a0$398d6fa0$845824d5 AT zephyr> <7458-Fri12Oct2001003417+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <018a01c152ad$8f5ad8c0$845824d5 AT zephyr> <4331-Fri12Oct2001084812+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	Re: _findfirst() patch
Date:	Sun, 14 Oct 2001 13:40:46 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> Right, except that findfirst was there first, and _dos_findfirst
> didn't seem like an important addition, so I guess no one looked very
> hard inside it.

Would you agree to the following design ?

     findfirst(), _findfirst()
                 |
                 |
                / \
        LFN=n  /   \  LFN=y
              /     \
             /       \
 _dos_findfirst()  _lfn_findfirst()
           |           |
           |           |
   function 4eh      function 714eh

This way there would be no low-level code duplicated. This would also mean
that _lfn_findfirst() would always fail if LFN=n. As it is not meant to be
directly called by the user, I don't think it's a problem.

Alternatively, I can also think of something like:

     findfirst(), _findfirst()
                 |
                 |
        _dos_lfn_findfirst()
                / \
        LFN=n  /   \  LFN=y
              /     \
             /       \
 _dos_findfirst()     \
           |           |
           |           |
   function 4eh      function 714eh

There would still be no low-level code duplicated but _dos_lfn_findfirst()
would not fail if LFN=n.

--
Eric Botcazou
ebotcazou AT multimania DOT com

- Raw text -