NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/lang/c/11766

Text File | 1992-07-30 | 3.7 KB | 80 lines

Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: About the 'F' in RTFM
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:21:30 GMT
Lines: 69

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David P. Murphy) writes:


>>>close, fred, but no cigar.  assuming for the sake of argument
>>>that the information really _is_ in the manual, then the novice
>>>says "Oh.  dammit, why isn't there an INDEX in this manual??"
>>>
>>>me

>>At which point you fix him with the look reserved for killing small,
>>brain-dead rodents and either point out that the commands are in
>>alphabetical order or hand him the book describing the layout of the
>>manuals.
>>
>>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)

>go ahead, compare me to a COBOL programmer.  no doubt this behavior is
>healthy for you, and since this is the net i pay no attention to name-calling.

Name calling?  Hmmm, I called you names and I MISSED it?  Awwwww.

>but, pray tell, what does that make the <very bad adjective> person at AT&T
>who decided that [a] no index was needed in the System V reference manuals
>and that [b] the table of contents didn't need page numbers and that
>[c] the "alphabetical" list of commands is only sorted that way _within_
>each group, as in make(1) fork(2) cuserid(3C) sin(3F) and so on.

It makes him more knowledgable about UNIX and how the AT&T manuals are
put together than you are?  When, by the way, did we fixate on AT&T
manuals only?  Scanning around through some of my FM's here, I find
SunOS manuals (both Index and TOC), MIPS manuals (TOC - I didn't see
an Index volume), VAX VMS manuals (Index and TOC)

>oh, and knowing that the commands are in alphabetical order may not
>may not be of much help, even if you _do_ know the group number.
>for instance, fstat() appears only under stat(2), while fileno() is
>discussed under ferror(3S).  i realize, of course, that this arrangement
>does not inconvenience you at all, fred, and that it is just the dues
>i must pay in order to one day be recognized as a unix guru ---
>coincidentally the same day i will slash my wrists.

Well, I just tried a little experiment for you.  I logged onto the
MIPS system and type 'man fstat'.  It gave me back THREE manual pages,
which were labelled "STAT (2-SysV)", "STAT (2-BSD)", and "STAT
(2-POSIX)".  Tried the same thing under SunOS (well, on a Solbourne,
actually) and got back "STAT (2V)".  Why is this too difficult for
you?

>why is the "layout of the manual" so <mind-shockingly rude adjective> sacred
>that no index is prepared??  huh??  c'mon, fred, let's hear some reasons!

Well, let me put it to you in terms of a phrase we used to use in the
military: If it ain't broke, don't fuck with it.  In this case, it
doesn't seem to be particularly broke.

>READ BEFORE FLAMING:  the groups mentioned above, and putting fileno()
>under ferror(), is fine . . . or would be, if they would just index it.

Ok, I'll try the same little exercise with fileno().  'man fileno'
yields "FERROR (3V) on the Solbourne and "FERROR (3S-SysV)" and
"FERROR (3S-BSD) on the MIPS.

So, what's your problem again?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.