Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 13:39:38 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.3.20
Message-ID: <20030201183938.GC3005@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20030201041117 DOT GA20843 AT redhat DOT com> <3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20030201061709 DOT 0080be50 AT h00207811519c DOT ne DOT client2 DOT attbi DOT com> <20030201183003 DOT GB3005 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030201183003.GB3005@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 01:30:03PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>Ok.  Don't you still have to call pr.refresh in the get??ent case in
>case it isn't initialized?  Is it guaranteed to be initialized by the
>time it gets to the get* functions?  Otherwise, I agree with your
>assessment.

I changed the code to only call refresh in the get??ent case when the
position is zero.  That should be safe, shouldn't it?

cgf