Message-ID: <00d301c154a5$510f9fc0$ef1924d5@zephyr> From: "Eric Botcazou" To: "DJGPP workers" 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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