home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.nyu.edu!schonberg!dewar
- From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
- 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: 13 Apr 1996 21:53:58 -0400
- Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
- Message-ID: <dewar.829446681@schonberg>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <dewar.829345962@schonberg> <4knqun$ga1@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <dewar.829399701@schonberg> <4kpceq$e4b@solutions.solon.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: schonberg.cs.nyu.edu
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV)
-
- Peter said:
-
- "delete() is not ANSI. remove() is ANSI. I have never seen a system that
- didn't offer it, since the 3b1. It's certainly trivial to write. (A good
- patch for portability is to write standard code, and have a set of
- conditionally built modules to provide the standard functions in terms
- of the not-standard but available on all old systems functions.)"
-
- Oops, that's right, it is indeed remove I meant (I don't know it because
- I don't use it -- I don't use it because the Microsoft book says it is
- not implemented in some systems). On the other hand, that same book says
- that unlink is implemented in all systems, so clearly at least for the
- moment unlink is safer to use if you are aiming at maximum portability.
- Rememerb that gcc is targeted to more than 300 different C library
- environments, and you want to absolutely minimize conditional stuff.
- That's what I meant by having a strenuous view of portability. I would
- rather guess that Peter is pretty Unix oriented, and of course we are
- trying for a wider scope of portability than Unix!
-
-