Subject: Re: POSIX named semaphores naming restrictions in sem_open()
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/11/2004 15:53:17
Ian Zagorskih wrote:
> Well, all what i'm wondering about is why NetBSD realization
> *explicitly* requires leading slash?....
> 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....
Not, it's not! It cannot possibly be POSIX compatible if it doesn't use
a leading slash.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 07:59:55AM +0200, email@example.com wrote:
> > Making NetBSD accept other syntaxes would not increase portability of the
> > application. It would just be a hack to make it magically work on NetBSD.
> Actually, as you note, it's worse than that; it actually *encourages*
> programmers to rely on nonstandard behaviour.
So here's a question this raises: is the purpose of our OS to encourage
other programmers to write better programs, or is the purpose of our OS
to let us easily run the applications we'd like to run?
Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.NetBSD.org
Make up enjoying your city life...produced by BIC CAMERA