home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: gwyn@brl.arpa (VLD/VMB) (Doug Gwyn)
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 10:33:00 EDT
-
- The reason strcoll() expands a text string to as much as twice its
- original length for collating purposes, rather than mapping it to
- a lowest-common-denominator form (such as case folding) is because
- it is believed that the former can always be done successfully,
- whereas lowest-common-denominator same-length mapping is known to
- be inadequate. Note also that the actions of strcoll() depend on
- a dynamically-changeable selection of "locale" information. So
- strcoll() is a red herring in this debate.
-
- UNIX variants that clear all but 7 bits in each char of a filename
- are examples of systems that try too hard to be "helpful" based on
- too limited a view of the world. They should be fixed, as I'm sure
- the Japanese have already suggested.
-
- Arguments based on characteristics of the shell or of command-line
- option parsing are beside the point; we're talking about what the
- kernel does or should do about filenames.
-
- The UNIX kernel was deliberately designed to be not much more than
- an I/O multiplexer. As with limited government, the theory is that
- the kernel should do only those things that cannot be done at the
- application level. This includes coordination of shared resources
- but NOT enforcement of technically unnecessary ideas about what is
- appropriate for applications to be doing.
-
- The fact that most UNIX implementations, including systems from
- Berkeley and ATTIS, do not fully adhere to this design philosophy
- is also irrelevant; they should perhaps be fixed. Certainly a
- standard such as POSIX that establishes a minimum common environment
- has no business imposing limited application models across the board.
- If POSIX is done properly, it should be even more minimalist than
- 8th Edition UNIX.
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 7, Number 81
-
-