From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <13426df10803201221y65ab42d4k3d6e92d9eb32f614@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:21:19 -0700
From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <84b81b7b75b737d2876d795fe7dc377e@proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <84b81b7b75b737d2876d795fe7dc377e@proxima.alt.za>
Subject: Re: [9fans] EWOULDBLOCK in APE
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7d4204f6-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:48 AM,  <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:

>  APE does not include EWOULDBLOCK in its <errno.h>.  I have a feeling
>  that no syscall will return EWOULDBLOCK as an error code, so I fail to
>  see any reason not to include it.  Am I missing something?

If it's not there, and someone uses EWOULDBLOCK, they'll get an
error.Probably a good idea.

I.E.

You Have Been Warned.

:-)

ron