Additional freeof function



Dan Stanger <dan.stanger@ieee.org> writes:

> I am willing to either change the name of the function
> to FREEOFL or modify existing usage of FREEOFL to LFREEOF.

Maybe it's better to leave the name as it is since you carefully chose
it that way.  At some point I might redefine FREEOFL to simply call
LFREEOF.

> [...] I will go back to LFREEOF and modify it then.
> Does this sound reasonable?

Up to you to decide, of course.  I just wanted to know what was going
on.  Thanks for explaining.


Wolfgang
-- 
wjenkner@inode.at