Re: [AD] Miscelaneous issues

[Evert G. <eg...@dd...>]

> Hm. I guess not. Also, the old, documented fields were removed. But
> there's nothing that can be done about it, and they shouldn't have been
> used by any code despite being documented. So, the best thing is
> probably to just make it an opaque structure. Evert: Should I create a
> new patch, or apply with the change?

Your patch arrived for me at the same time as this message (damn
sourceforge), so I didn't take too close a look at it. Peter knows more
about it than I do anyway, so as far as I'm concerned it's ok if you appl=
y
it with the change.

> Yes, that's why I called it "quick docs" :P I completely agree though :=
)

Doc polishing is something we can do between beta and release anyway. I'd
just prefer to have some skelleton docs in beta rather than none :)

> Hm, I think I understand. But generally, pack_feof can always be
> provided, so then there never should be a problem, right? Still,
> wouldn't hurt to document it - but I'm not sure how I can find out wher=
e
> it is needed, besides reading through the code of all the loaders.

I think the problem is not that it couldn't be provided but that some laz=
y
people might not provide it. Shouldn't be much of a problem if we just li=
e
by telling people that they have to provide it at all times. ;)

Evert