Hi Julien,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Julien Pauli <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In order to avoid further arguments about whether a separate function
> > for read-and-close is better or not, I've added an alternative
> > proposal - to rename the option to 'read_close' or 'read_and_close'.
> > After all, the most important thing is that it's not 'read_only'.
>
>
> I agree "read_and_close" is much better discribing what it really does , so
> I prefer it.
I'm not sure if it's good to have "and" or not, but I'm OK with or without
"and".
Should I change it now?
I mean in my github repo.
I haven't committed the RFC patch yet.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
[email protected]