On Oct 8, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
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
Rüdiger
apr_socket_readable() ?
