On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes please.
Also, for error raising, I saw your github discussion.
We already raise errors in session functions when the session state is not
the good one at some point.
I suggest we do it as well for new session functions that's been introduced
: session_reset() and session_abort().
Leave session_write_close() as it is.
Thx.
Julien