Hi! On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 07:43:20AM +0200, Oliver Schmidt wrote: > I presume I'm not the only one considering <...>2 function names quite > ugly, am I? Yes, they're ugly. If you have suggestions for a better name, you're most welcome. > Hm, we're discussing since several years the lack of opendir() and friends > on CBM. Wouldn't it be the "right" solution to finally include those and > re-designate cbm_opendir() to CBM-specific functionality as its name > implies? These are actually two only marginally connected problems. While it is for sure worthwhile to have opendir() for the CBMs, there are still good reasons to have cbm_opendir handle pattern matching for files. The standard POSIX opendir() function doesn't allow for a file name pattern by definition. > In my personal opinion the clean approach might be worth the trouble of > incompatibility in this case... If it is consensus that changing the prototype for cbm_opendir is acceptable, I'm even more happy. My suggestion was based on the assumption that it is worth some trouble to avoid incompatibilities between compiler versions, especially since in the given case the actual overhead is quite low. Opinions, anyone? Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Mon May 28 12:46:30 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-05-28 12:46:34 CEST