Cliff Woolley wrote:
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.
I agree: using apr_mmap_setaside() for consistency would make sense. We probably need to keep apr_mmap_dup() for backward compatibility, but we could do this:
#define apr_mmap_setaside(new, old, pool) apr_mmap_dup(new, old, pool, 1); /* the '1' at the end is the "transfer ownership" flag
--Brian
