On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:58:24PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I think that what Klaus means is merely documenting the fields and
> types that the programmer needs to know in order to use the API, but
> leave ones that are implementation details out (and avoid saying that
> this is the complete
In article <20110412180513.ga9...@kleink.org>,
Klaus Klein wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:22:50AM +, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
>> Module Name: src
>> Committed By:jruoho
>> Date:Tue Apr 12 08:22:49 UTC 2011
>>
>> Modified Files:
>> src/distrib/sets/lists/comp: mi
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:26:40PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:22:17PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > And to use mktime(3), you must know the "tm" structure.
>
> No, you don't have to. That's the point Klaus is trying to make.
> You need to know that certain fie
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:22:17PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> And to use mktime(3), you must know the "tm" structure.
No, you don't have to. That's the point Klaus is trying to make.
You need to know that certain fields exist, maybe also which type they
have. But you don't need to know the spe
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:56:27PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
> Just to make it clear again, it's really just the structure
> definitions being documented verbatim I'm taking issue with.
I agree with this and Iain's earlier comment about using a wording such as
"[...] has at least the following mem
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:25:06PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:24:00PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
> > > by being that specific, such documentation creates the obligation to
> > > keep the redundant defi
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:21:29PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
> > This exhibits something particularly well that's been bugging me for
> > quite a while about such documentation changes: I think documenting
> > the implementation's st
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Klaus Klein wrote:
> > > Log Message:
> > > Add a small summary parge for struct tm from . Cf. timeval(3).
> >
> > This exhibits something particularly well that's been bugging me for
> > quite a while about such documentation changes: I think
Klaus Klein wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > Add a small summary parge for struct tm from . Cf. timeval(3).
>
> This exhibits something particularly well that's been bugging me for
> quite a while about such documentation changes: I think documenting
> the implementation's structure layouts in section
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:25:06PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:24:00PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
> > > by being that specific, such documentation creates the obligation to
> > > keep the redundant defi
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:24:00PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
> > by being that specific, such documentation creates the obligation to
> > keep the redundant definition in sync.
>
PS.
If you look what I've written in, say, stdlib(3)
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Klaus Klein wrote:
> This exhibits something particularly well that's been bugging me for
> quite a while about such documentation changes: I think documenting
> the implementation's structure layouts in section 3 is wrong, at least
> when supposedly portab
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:22:50AM +, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: jruoho
> Date: Tue Apr 12 08:22:49 UTC 2011
>
> Modified Files:
> src/distrib/sets/lists/comp: mi
> src/share/man/man3: Makefile
> Added Files:
> src/share/man/man3: tm.3
>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:51:39PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> but this looks indeed simpler (haven't tested it though).
I did a very quick test: does not work - I won't have time to dig any further
today or tomorrow, if somebody gets it working this way, and this is
prefered somehow, please f
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:39:54AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
> Wouldn't it be less confusing to have opened /etc/protocols before
> doing the chroot ??
Hmm, now that you mention it - a
setprotoent(1);
before the chroot should do, shouldn't it?
I don't know which solution is preferable
15 matches
Mail list logo
