Well, there is no CVS standard, but rather a standard in the
CODING_GUIDELINES file. However, in this case, I think you can
disregard that, since the function is so similiar (in nature) to the
diskfreespace() function that disktotalspace() makes the most sense,
instead of
At 01:25 16/5/2001, Jon Parise wrote:
Wouldnt it make more sense here to correct the name of diskfree_space and
and an alias back rather than introducing new functions that are named not
according the the standard?
No, I don't think it's really that much of an issue.
We've had a huge
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:37:51AM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Yes, but this new version will work correctly under Unix-like
systems and Windows NT / 2000 systems. Executing system binaries
is sloppy for things like this, anyway.
Or perhaps I'm missing your point?
I think you were
At 01:40 16/5/2001, Jon Parise wrote:
How do you feel about renaming the existing diskfreespace()
function to disk_free_space() (with an alias for backwards
compatibility)?
A warm fuzzy feeling :) Seriously though, it's been discussed in great
length, and at least from what I understood, going
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:47:15AM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
How do you feel about renaming the existing diskfreespace()
function to disk_free_space() (with an alias for backwards
compatibility)?
A warm fuzzy feeling :) Seriously though, it's been discussed in great
length, and at
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 07:14:27AM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
How do you feel about renaming the existing diskfreespace()
function to disk_free_space() (with an alias for backwards
compatibility)?
A warm fuzzy feeling :) Seriously though, it's been discussed in
great length,
How do you feel about renaming the existing diskfreespace()
function to disk_free_space() (with an alias for backwards
compatibility)?
A warm fuzzy feeling :) Seriously though, it's been discussed in
great length, and at least from what I understood, going in that
direction
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:01:46AM +0100, James Moore wrote:
If someone feels the need to revert the change, go ahead. I
prefer to just leave it now that I've already changed it, and
then I'll add the new function as disk_total_space().
Why add more functions to be depreciated soon??
James Moore wrote:
How do you feel about renaming the existing diskfreespace()
function to disk_free_space() (with an alias for backwards
compatibility)?
A warm fuzzy feeling :) Seriously though, it's been discussed in
great length, and at least from what I understood, going in that
direction
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:50:48AM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
Well, for one thing, no one has agreed on a naming convention yet.
So its possible that now we'll have two aliases:
diskfreespace
disk_free_space
and then the actual function name:
disk_freespace()
or
The patch looks ok, a couple of questions though...
1) disktotalspace() looks like a memory intensive operation, perhaps
having a cache might not be a bad idea.
2) I see you use LoadLibrary to load in kernel32.dll on Win32, what
happens on that system when I call disk total space more than
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:51:52PM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
The patch looks ok, a couple of questions though...
I'm not the original author of the function, but so I'll answer
as best I can.
1) disktotalspace() looks like a memory intensive operation, perhaps
having a cache might not
12 matches
Mail list logo
