On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote: > On 3/11/2024 6:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > The open() side handles fds in a for loop but close() is based on two > > fixed indexes READ and WRITE. > > > > Match the close() side with the open() side by using for loop for > > consistency. > > I find the close() side to be more appropriate. I say this for two > reasons: (a) looking at the close() calls as they are now it is > obvious what the close() applies to and transitioning to a loop > adds a layer of unnecessary indirection, (b) I do not think a loop > is appropriate for the READ/WRITE define that just happen to be 0 > and 1 ... there should not be an assumption about their underlying > value. Hi, So to confirm are you suggesting I should remove all the other loops instead? -- i.
