Re: ARES_ENODATA vs. ARES_ENOTFOUND

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Jakub Hrozek wrote:

> My question is - should just the docs be amended such that ENODATA is a
> valid and expected return code, or should ares_gethostbyname() be changed so
> that it translates ENODATA into ENOTFOUND somehow?

As this is functionality that has been like this for quite some time already I
think it is better to update the docs to reflect the code rather than the
opposite.

-- 
  / daniel.haxx.se