home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail
- From: c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
- Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada)
- Date: 11 Apr 1996 23:07:01 -0700
- Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
- Message-ID: <4kkru5INN71j@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <4k3utg$ndp@solutions.solon.com> <dewar.828757752@schonberg> <4kkbk7$hv8@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca
-
- In article <4kkbk7$hv8@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
- Chuck Karish <karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
- >In article <dewar.828757752@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
- >>"You know, POSIX, Spec 1170, X/Open, that kind of stuff. POSIX is the one the
- >>US govt. will not use Win NT because of, because it doesn't match the spec
- >>they've selected."
- >
- >Incorrect premise: Windows NT does conform to POSIX.1 and the
- >US Government does buy it as a FIPS 151-2 conforming system.
-
- It does? You mean under NT, I could, say, disable the console echo by making
- suitable changes to a ``struct termios'', and pass it to tcsetattr()?
- Or send a SIGTSTP signal to the foreground process group from the controlling
- terminal? Wow...
-
- --
-
-