RE: non-blocking

[yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx]

    From: "Donn Terry" <yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

    I had also filed an aardvark on this topic, from two other points of
    view: ...
    If I remember correctly, this did get fixed, so this change (which is
    reasonable except that it needs to not be JUST for file descriptors)
    needs to be reconciled with whatever the final approved change was.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx [mailto:yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx]
    Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 6:18 AM
    To: yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Subject: non-blocking

    I noticed that the Non-Blocking section is rather badly worded.
    Andries

    @ Page 75 Line 2461 Section Non-Blocking Comment []
    ...

I suppose Andrew will determine proper procedure here.
When d6 is prepared with your change, he can perhaps
take my comments along, regarding them as editorial.
(They are mostly intended editorially - the current text
does not make sense and my text attempts to formulate
what the author intended to say.)
And otherwise this must perhaps be an aardvark for d6.

Andries