Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:58:08 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou AT libertysurf DOT fr>
cc: DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: _findfirst() patch (2)
In-Reply-To: <008901c15d6b$939e6640$b05424d5@zephyr>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1011025175503.9744H-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 Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Eric Botcazou wrote:

> > > No, of course, but that's consistent with the errno code since
> > > _doserr_to_errno(5) = EACCES.
> >
> > I don't think this consistency matters too much.  It's more important to
> > tell the calling application something intelligent about why did the
> > function fail.
> 
> Is it really more intelligent to return 2 (File not Found) or 3 (Path not
> Found) when the path pointer or the result pointer are invalid, rather than
> 9 (memory block address invalid) that gives EFAULT ?

I don't object to 9; it's that ubiquitous EACCES that I don't like ;-)

> > Yes, there are places in the docs where incorrect markup is used.  That
> > doesn't mean we should add new ones.
> 
> Obviously not, but that makes it a little hard to pick the right one :-)

It's quite clear for me that it is not easy, without lots of experience 
writing Texinfo docs.  That's why I point out the parts that need fixing: 
so that you could learn for the future.  I'm grateful for the work you've 
done.