home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Doug Gwyn <uunet!smoke.brl.mil!gwyn>
-
- >From: guido@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum)
- >Also, even though we cannot guarantee 1003.1 conformance in all areas,
- >we (the Amoeba group) do conform whereever we can. All library
- >functions, headers and constants required by 1003.1 will be there,
- >although some functions will always return an error and others will not
- >obey the exact prescribed semantics under certain conditions. We
- >believe we have done the best we could given the possibilities of our
- >file system.
-
- That's a reasonable approach, that should be pursued by other C
- implementations in non-UNIX environments. I'm doing something similar
- for the C environment on my Apple running GS/OS, which cannot support
- a resaonble emulation of fork() but can nicely support readdir() etc.
- Such a "near-POSIX" environment reduces the problems of porting UNIX-
- based applications into the environment, although there will be some
- that are hopeless.
-
- >Should we be punished for non-conformance or given some points for not
- >deviating unnecessary?
-
- Neither. If someone truly requires 1003.1 conformance then you won't
- be able to give it to them, but if all they want is 1003.2 then you're
- in a good position.
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 19, Number 93
-
-