On 6/28/06, david reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I avoided using _io_... as what else could it be? Also there won't be any other _read or _write as everything is abstracted away, so it seemed surplus to requirements.
I think it's more in line with our naming conventions that we stick to placing the type of the passed structure in the function name. We had apr_read and apr_write before and I thought that wasn't very descriptive. If we say it is 'apr_io_write", then the dev knows it has something to do with our custom I/O abstraction (and purposefully isn't an analogue to read()/write() syscalls). -- justin
