Karl Fogel wrote: > > Maybe we should still go with APR_EINVAL, on the principle of least > surprise, though. I'm not sure; trusting people with more APR > experience to know a good answer here. >
Not sure how that section of code is (and too lazy right now to take a gander) but assuming that whatever checks the return value is aware that it can rec' "traditional" errno values as well as APR_EINVAL, +1 on EINVAL -> APR_EINVAL -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
