Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 22:49:05 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: James Howard <howardjp@wam.umd.edu>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mktemp() vs. mkstemp() Message-ID: <20000514224905.D14160@mad> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005141355390.66774-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>; from Kris Kennaway on Sun, May 14, 2000 at 01:56:28PM -0700 References: <200005141849.OAA21071@rac10.wam.umd.edu> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005141355390.66774-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 01:56:28PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > integer file descriptor whereas normal people use FILE * pointers, > > including the author of this port. How about an mkftemp() which wraps > > around mkstemp() and does an fdopen()? > > This would be completely non-portable - if you really need this, make one > yourself and add it to a library distributed with your code. It's certainly not like it would be the first non-portable function we've added. Where adding functions to libraries encourages better coding practices, I'm (often) in favour of it, especially if it encourages more secure coding practices. Ultimately everyone benefits, and the pain is short-term. -- Signature withheld by request of author. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000514224905.D14160>