On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Kip Macy wrote:
Hi,
What do you think wrt to adding the (possibly optional) int *error and
returning the errno rather than a (void *)-1? If you'd be ok, I'd can
prepare the patch. I'd rather break the API now than in a few
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Kip Macy wrote:
Hi,
What do you think wrt to adding the (possibly optional) int *error and
returning the errno rather than a (void *)-1? If you'd be ok, I'd can
prepare the patch. I'd rather break the API now than in a few months.
I would greatly prefer having a dedicate
> What do you think wrt to adding the (possibly optional) int *error and
> returning the errno rather than a (void *)-1? If you'd be ok, I'd can
> prepare the patch. I'd rather break the API now than in a few months.
I would greatly prefer having a dedicated new function that calls in
to it. Ther