05.08.2014, 05:32, "Dave Beckett" <[email protected]>: > On 8/4/14, 5:58 AM, Victor Porton wrote: >> The API for raptor_iostream_write_bytes() function is wrongly documented. >> (The function itself is correct, just the documentation is wrong.) >> >> There are similar issues also with >> >> raptor_iostream_decimal_write() >> raptor_iostream_hexadecimal_write() >> >> For the last two functions, it is unclear what should be changed, the >> functions themselves or their documentation. >> >> See my bug report (Raptor 2.0.14) for details: >> >> http://bugs.librdf.org/mantis/view.php?id=575 >> >> Please inform me about these two functions, whether we will change the >> functions themselves or just the documentation. >> >> I need this information to continue writing my Ada binding for Raptor. > > I replied in the bug: > > The signatures were originally intended to match fwrite() which returns > number of objects. Hence why raptor_filename_iostream_write_bytes() just > casts it from fwrite(). Although that is bad since the signature of fwrite() > returns a size_t, so write_bytes() should have been defined that way. > > Since raptor_iostream_decimal_write() and > raptor_iostream_hexadecimal_write() both call > raptor_filename_iostream_write_bytes() they are at least implemented the > same way even if the documentation doesn't match.
What "are at least implemented the same way" means? Should I assume that raptor_iostream_decimal_write() and raptor_iostream_hexadecimal_write() return the number of bytes written? (It seems quite useless for me to receive the number of bytes here.) > So I guess I'm considering it a documentation bug but I'm open to suggestions. > > Dave -- Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org _______________________________________________ redland-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.librdf.org/mailman/listinfo/redland-dev
