Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 10:12:17 +0100 From: Marc Recht <marc@informatik.uni-bremen.de> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU>, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: POSIX and the real life or FreeBSD too strict ? Message-ID: <1010050000.1039425137@leeloo.intern.geht.de> In-Reply-To: <20021208190404.H74206@espresso.q9media.com> References: <584000000.1039360297@leeloo.intern.geht.de> <20021208203949.GA535@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <758430000.1039382013@leeloo.intern.geht.de> <20021208214357.GA945@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <794560000.1039386792@leeloo.intern.geht.de> <20021208190404.H74206@espresso.q9media.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] [Sorry, missed that.] > As for the extention to allow POSIX and BSD object to both be visible > by defining an extra constant, I don't think this is a very good idea. > You end up with each OS having a different escape word, each being IMHO that extra define gains us much. It makes porting applications easier, because I could just do: setenv CFLAGS "-D__EXTENSIONS" ./configure I don't have to change in the third-party app anything. The extra define would cost us nothing and the manual could warn about it, like "You're leaving POSIX island now.". > unportable. A much more portable solution would be not to request a > specific standard at all if one requires things outside that > standard's scope. But then you have to change third-party code. Regards, Marc "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." -- Donald E. Knuth [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE99F5x7YQCetAaG3MRAv+EAJsGcekKBBR/VjsoG0ezmoDiIkwRswCfdCE4 oHGS7/MhvVULlKffJ1upRV4= =4X4C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1010050000.1039425137>