On 10/06/2009 08:51 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > On 10/06/2009 10:52 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> >> or something similar? The API docs should reflect that the return value >> is 1-on-success/zero-on-failure (unusual for APR), and that the function >> does not block. > > I can invert the return value as well, but in this case shouldn't this > be reflected in the name as well? > So with inverted return value shouldn't it be > > apr_socket_at_read_not_eof > > or do you think I shouldn't return an int at all and return apr_status_t > instead > with APR_SUCCESS if the read side of our end of the socket is eof > (and leaving the name as apr_socket_at_read_eof in this case)? Sorry for being impatient here, but Joe any comment on the above? I would like to fix this. Regards RĂ¼diger
