Re: [RFA]: File-I/O patch, Documentation

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:30:05AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> The problem is that the protocol spec isn't self contained.  As best as 
> I can tell, the specification is making assumptions about the underlying 
> characteristics of `int', `long', `time_t', et.al. types.  `int', for 
> instance, can be anything from 16 to 64 bits.

Huh?  This is explicitely defined in the chapter "Integral datatypes"
which is the chapter mistakenly defined as B.1.  See below.

> >>The byte order of all the values should be defined.
> >
> >It is.  Quote from the text:
> >
> >  Structured data which is transferred using a memory read or write
> >  packet as e.g. a struct stat is expected to be in a protocol specific
> >  format with all numerical multibyte datatypes being big endian.
> 
> If it is defined somewhere else, then cross references are needed.

So why don't you say this?  You read the document, I assume.  But you
told that as if it's not in the document.  That's a difference I couldn't
get from what you wrote.

> >>The reference to B.1 should be removed.
> Er, `B.1' is meaningless.  If the intent was to reference another 
> section of the document, then a texinfo cross-reference should be used.

Sic, yes.  It's just a textual reference which I got wrong.  This has
nothing to do with content which your reply implied to me. 

Sorry to say that but it's hard to understand what you're up to if your
answers are that short.  My mind-reading skills got a little bit rusty...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Developer
Red Hat, Inc.
mailto:vinschen@redhat.com