On Wednesday 16 July 2008 11:07:36 am Klaus Heinz wrote: > Wouldn't "subfile_fdopen" be a better name than "subfile_fopen", then? > Similar to "fdopen" and "fopen" described in section 3 in the man pages. No. This follows the syscall style of stat(2), fstat(2), chdir(2), fchdir(2) and so forth. --Phil -- Phil Nelson (phil at cs.wwu.edu) http://www.cs.wwu.edu/nelson NetBSD: http://www.NetBSD.org Coda: http://www.coda.cs.cmu.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.