Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:59:54 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, ebotcazou AT libertysurf DOT fr
Subject: Re: _findfirst() patch
In-Reply-To: <10110110332.AA20364@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1011011095932.18580L-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> These functions look so identical to the current ones to me that it looks
> like _find* could just be a wrapper around the current find* routines.
> The return arguments and data structures might be different, but at a quick
> glance I didn't see anything unique to either set of calls.

Making them wrappers around findfirst/findnext was my original
suggestion to the person who wanted those functions in DJGPP.  I don't
know why that suggestion was not taken.