APR_STATUS_* semantics [Re: Breaking something? Now is the time?]

2002-06-28 Thread Branko ibej
Since we're talking about semantics, breakage, etc, I'll take the opportunity to bore everybody with an issue I'd like resolved, too; Namely, the semantics of the APR_STATUS_IS_* macros. I've said several times before that APR_STATUS_IS_ENOENT and APR_STATUS_IS_ENOTDIR don't have the same

Re: APR_STATUS_* semantics [Re: Breaking something? Now is the time?]

2002-06-28 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 02:43 PM 6/28/2002, =?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= wrote: Since we're talking about semantics, breakage, etc, I'll take the opportunity to bore everybody with an issue I'd like resolved, too; Namely, the semantics of the APR_STATUS_IS_* macros. I've said several times before that

Re: APR_STATUS_* semantics [Re: Breaking something? Now is the time?]

2002-06-28 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: What I'd like to propose is that we document that, for any given status code, _more_ than one APR_STATUS_IS* macro can match, and it's the programmer's responsibility to decide in what order to make the tests. +1 --Cliff