From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Jan 27 14:50: 3 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from aslan.scsiguy.com (aslan.scsiguy.com [63.229.232.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8213237B400 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:49:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from scsiguy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aslan.scsiguy.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f0RMneO30798; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:49:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from gibbs@scsiguy.com) Message-Id: <200101272249.f0RMneO30798@aslan.scsiguy.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed change to sbuf semantics In-Reply-To: Your message of "27 Jan 2001 23:43:02 +0100." Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:49:40 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >--=-=-= > >"Justin T. Gibbs" writes: >> >Is this acceptable to you? >> I still would need an "sbuf_empty()" type method. > >This better? I still need an "sbuf_empty()" type method. 8-) Or did I miss something in the diff? In otherwords, I'd like to be able to test if an sbuf has been written to before it has been finalized so you can do things like: if (sbuf_empty(sbuf) == 0) sbuf_cat(sbuf, ", "); sbuf_ .... -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message