On Friday 10 September 2004 12:59, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 12:43:00PM +0700, Ian Zagorskih wrote:
> > POSIX documentation indicates that lacking a leading slash character may
> > lead to failure but does not require it. Of course if i got POSIX docs
> > right.
>
> [...]
>
> > Let's take for example some application that doesn't name semaphores this
> > way. It will be obviously "broken" on NetBSD while technically it is
> > POSIX compatible and could be fully usable in NetBSD environment.
>
> Your two claims about the standard are inconsistent.  First you (correctly)
> note that semaphore names without a leading slash yield "implementation
> defined" behaviour under the POSIX standard.  Then you claim that an
> application that relies on the behaviour of a *particular implementation*
> "is POSIX compatible".

Well, there are at least two points of view:
1. If it's not explicitly allowed it's prohibited.
2. If it's not explicitly prohibited it's allowed.

Making my statements i was based on the second view (though usually i prefer 
first).

> So, are they?  No?  Didn't think so.  You have a nonportable application
> on your hands.  You should fix it.

Thank you, i got the point. Technically, it's all i wanted to know :)

// wbr