At 7:01 PM +0200 10/10/03, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
So i think it would be better to let PIO_seek return the current
offset. So I purpose a change of the prototype of PIO_seek to
If you've not already done this, go ahead. (I'm a bit behind :)
--
Dan
--
At 03:22 PM 10/11/2003 +0200, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
I just checked in the change to use the new/traditional semantics.
Furthermore i fixed some seek-errors in io_buf.
Nice. A few bugs down, a lot more to go :)
-Melvin
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> That sounds proper as that is the traditional semantic for seek/lseek
> on most systems. I'm not sure why I wrote it otherwise, probably
> just in haste.
That semantic I had in mind.
I just checked in the change to use the new/traditional semantic
At 07:01 PM 10/10/2003 +0200, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on some bugs in the PIO_seek code, and i find
the current return-code of Seek impractical: it just returns 0 on
success and -1 on error. I found myself writing code like
PIO_seek_down(...);
pos = PIO_tell_down(...);
bu
Hi,
I'm currently working on some bugs in the PIO_seek code, and i find
the current return-code of Seek impractical: it just returns 0 on
success and -1 on error. I found myself writing code like
PIO_seek_down(...);
pos = PIO_tell_down(...);
but in the layer implementations typically is this cod
