svn commit: r187805 - head/lib/libc/stdio

[Tom Rhodes]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:27:32 +0200
Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:07:51 -0500, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 January 2009 8:55:37 am Tom Rhodes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:09:56 +0200 Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:11:21 +0000 (UTC), Tom Rhodes <trhodes at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >> > > Author: trhodes
> >> > > Date: Wed Jan 28 01:11:20 2009
> >> > > New Revision: 187805
> >> > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/187805
> >> > >
> >> > > Log:
> >> > >   Remove comment about clearerr() being the only method of clearing
> >> > >   the EOF indicator, fseek() may also be used for this.
> >> > >
> >> > >   Bump document date.
> >> >
> >> > I don't like this, sorry...  Having a pointer to clearerr() is nice.
> >> > Removing it *deletes* useful information, but we should add _more_ of
> >> > it.
> >> >
> >> > How about this instead?
> >> >
> >> >     The end-of-file indicator may be cleared by explicitly calling
> >> >     .Fn clearerr ,
> >> >     or as a side-effect of other operations, i.e.\&
> >> >     .Fn fseek .
> >>
> >> I think 'side-effect" is wrong here - it may not be a "side
> >> effect" at all, but, on purpose.  :)
> >
> > If one solely wants to clear the indicator then clearerr() is probably
> > what you should do.  Using fseek() only to clear the indicator would
> > be bad form.  One should be using fseek() because they need to seek to
> > a different location in the stream, not to clear the error.  Thus, I
> > agree with Giorgos' wording.
> 
> Precisely.  We are not suggesting that users SHOULD use side-effects,
> just noting one example.  The _intent_ of a function to clear EOF is
> more important than the fact that it happens 'in addition to' other
> things as opposed to 'because we asked for it'.
> 
> 

See latest change, took your wording and John's follow up,
thanks!

-- 
Tom Rhodes