home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: gwyn@brl.arpa (VLD/VMB) (Douglas A. Gwyn)
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 11:31:40 EST
-
- getopt() -- this would depend on adoption of the AT&T "command language
- syntax standard", which is in the domain of 1003.2. This may happen.
-
- curses -- this lies outside the scope of X3J11 and 1003.1. It would
- perhaps be worth standardizing in some other 1003.n working group.
-
- popen() -- this was discussed by X3J11 and excluded, on the grounds that
- non-UNIX vendors would find themselves under pressure from customers
- to make popen() useful rather than just a stub, and the inability to
- do this would lead to unhappiness. Similar arguments against system()
- were somewhat weaker, and although its return value semantics were
- reworked, system() survived since it is implementable in a non-trivial
- way far more often than popen().
-
- I don't know what problems Mark could have with <memory.h>, since
- it isn't in the X3J11 draft proposed standard, nor with memccpy(),
- which doesn't exist. If he meant memcpy(), X3J11 permits SVID
- semantics for that now. (The previous "Rob Pike special" is also
- defined, under the name memmove(), since there was no consensus for
- preferring either of the two possible specifications for the function.
- I suspect in many implementations memmove() and memcpy() will be
- synonymous.)
-
- P.S. The X3J11 draft proposed standard intended for public review and
- comment has been printed, but has to receive some sort of official
- approval (X3?) before it is actually sent out to the public. This
- will take something like a month longer than originally anticipated,
- as I understand it. Patience!
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 8, Number 28
-
-