From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jan 11 6:38:42 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 C128837B400 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:38:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from scsiguy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aslan.scsiguy.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f0BEZrs28389; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:35:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from gibbs@scsiguy.com) Message-Id: <200101111435.f0BEZrs28389@aslan.scsiguy.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed chage to sbuf semantics. In-Reply-To: Your message of "11 Jan 2001 10:23:01 +0100." Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:35:53 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: >> If the user really wants to finalize an overflowed sbuf, they can >> explicitly un-overflow it using setpos() (this is documented in the >> NOTES section of the man page). Please to not change the behavior of >> sbuf_finish(). > >Actually, there's one alternative: provide a flag (settable at >sbuf_new() time) that tells sbuf_finish() to ignore overflows. Why should the constuctor of the sbuf have to know this. Perhaps the sbuf is filled by helper functions, etc. This just ties the hand of the user. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message