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
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

 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

- Raw text -