Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:27:32 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Tom Rhodes <trhodes@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r187805 - head/lib/libc/stdio Message-ID: <87k58fh5ez.fsf@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <200901280907.52256.jhb@freebsd.org> (John Baldwin's message of "Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:07:51 -0500") References: <200901280111.n0S1BL7n003092@svn.freebsd.org> <873af38tln.fsf@kobe.laptop> <20090128085537.2d6c9c34.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <200901280907.52256.jhb@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:07:51 -0500, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 28 January 2009 8:55:37 am Tom Rhodes wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:09:56 +0200 Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> wrote: >> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:11:21 +0000 (UTC), Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> > > Author: trhodes >> > > Date: Wed Jan 28 01:11:20 2009 >> > > New Revision: 187805 >> > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/187805 >> > > >> > > Log: >> > > Remove comment about clearerr() being the only method of clearing >> > > the EOF indicator, fseek() may also be used for this. >> > > >> > > Bump document date. >> > >> > I don't like this, sorry... Having a pointer to clearerr() is nice. >> > Removing it *deletes* useful information, but we should add _more_ of >> > it. >> > >> > How about this instead? >> > >> > The end-of-file indicator may be cleared by explicitly calling >> > .Fn clearerr , >> > or as a side-effect of other operations, i.e.\& >> > .Fn fseek . >> >> I think 'side-effect" is wrong here - it may not be a "side >> effect" at all, but, on purpose. :) > > If one solely wants to clear the indicator then clearerr() is probably > what you should do. Using fseek() only to clear the indicator would > be bad form. One should be using fseek() because they need to seek to > a different location in the stream, not to clear the error. Thus, I > agree with Giorgos' wording. Precisely. We are not suggesting that users SHOULD use side-effects, just noting one example. The _intent_ of a function to clear EOF is more important than the fact that it happens 'in addition to' other things as opposed to 'because we asked for it'.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87k58fh5ez.fsf>