Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:02:52 -0400 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@freebsd.org> To: babkin@freebsd.org Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@freebsd.org>, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include pwd.h Message-ID: <20020610210252.B90728@espresso.q9media.com> In-Reply-To: <3D05364A.469A44A5@bellatlantic.net>; from babkin@bellatlantic.net on Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 07:29:14PM -0400 References: <200206091939.g59JdJC05285@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020610004026.GD61036@wantadilla.lemis.com> <200206100049.g5A0nr1P004846@apollo.backplane.com> <20020609211243.C51371@espresso.q9media.com> <200206100314.g5A3EjTt005317@apollo.backplane.com> <20020609232020.F51371@espresso.q9media.com> <3D05364A.469A44A5@bellatlantic.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sergey Babkin <babkin@bellatlantic.net> writes: > Mike Barcroft wrote: > > Well, POSIX and X/Open were merged into on standard POSIX.1-2001 > > aka SUSv3. I think the requirements that the typedefs be in each > > header comes from the X/Open side, but I'm sure Bruce or Garrett could > > elaborate. > > This (defining the types multiple times) is definitely not a part > of Unix95 nor Unix98. And the approach of defining the types multiple > times looks very wrong to me. It is absolutely bound to end up with > types changed in some headers but not in the others. And I think that > the whole argument about "namespace pollution" is completely bogus. What I say can easily be verified with SUSv2: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/pwd.h.html I have a link to POSIX.1-2001/SUSv3 on the project's page if you're also interesting in verifying that they didn't removing this requirement from the latest edition: http://www.FreeBSD.org/projects/c99/ Since the type is actually only defined in one place you need only change it in one place. Comments like these suggest that you haven't actually read the commit diff, and that you don't understand how _BSD_FOO_T_ works. > > It won't do any harm to additionally include <sys/types.h>, but you > > are right, they should be updated. > > The standard way remove to the requirement of including <sys/types.h> > before <unistd.h> is to include <sys/types.h> from inside <unistd.h>. Including <sys/types.h> in each header would lead to a very poor, though possibly compliant, implementation. Though you should feel free to start adding <sys/types.h> includes in various headers to measure the effectiveness of BDE's namespace pollution radar. :) Best regards, Mike Barcroft To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020610210252.B90728>