On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Brian Pane wrote: > Which dup() do you mean: the dup(2) or the naming convention of > using "_dup*()" for this family of apr_file_t functions?
Sorry, I should have been more precise. apr_file_dup() was what I was referring to. On second thought though, I suppose I wouldn't object to apr_file_setaside() if we changed apr_mmap_dup() to be apr_mmap_setaside() as well... would that make sense? I'm just looking for consistency here, not objecting to the concept. --Cliff
