home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: mayne.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail
- From: c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Libraries
- Date: 25 Mar 1996 17:33:27 -0800
- Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
- Message-ID: <4j7hh7INN980@mayne.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- References: <4j48sn$kg@airdmhor.gen.nz>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: mayne.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca
-
- In article <4j48sn$kg@airdmhor.gen.nz>,
- Simon Hosie <gumboot@airdmhor.gen.nz> wrote:
- > Why do so many DOS compilers come with DOS extensions that behave almost
- >identically to the standard ANSI or POSIX functions? It it just to maintain
- >PC incompatibility?
-
- I don't think you will find any DOS compiler that even remotely implements
- POSIX. Now if you _half_ implement POSIX, you have already broken the standard,
- so why bother making compliant the calls you _do_ have?
- --
-
-