> I respectfully disagree.  The manual pages *should* document the
> union of the following sets of error codes:
>    - codes which can be returned by the current implementation.
>    - codes which were returned by our implementation in the past.
>    - codes which the implementors want to be able to return in the future.
>    - codes which standards we care about say can be returned.

I agree, with two notes:

- I would add "codes returned by other systems we consider major enough
   to care about", specifically including OSes we support compatability
   modes for (in particular, I've far too often seen vendor OSes return
   undocumented error codes);

- It should be possible to tell from reading the manpage what subset of
   these classes each errno falls into.  I don't go as far in this
   direction as I suspect Greg Woods does; I don't (for example) want
   to see this-implementation errnos broken out into a list distinct
   from any of the others.  But it would be a Good Thing to have.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B