Brian Ginsbach wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 01:48:02PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>> While I don't think EAFNOTSUPPORT is the right error (we have EPFNOSUPPORT 
>> which man errno seems to say is right), it's much better than 
>> ENOPROTOSUPPORT.
>>
> 
> I agree but then we need convince IEEE and X/Open.  The current
> standards have no concept of EPFNOSUPPORT.  Maybe if this would
> have been fixed long ago by the CSRG, IEEE and X/Open would have
> had the right errno to begin with.  As it stands now I think we
> need to live with the admittedly poorer EAFNOSUPPORT.

#define EAFNOSUPPORT EPFNOSUPPORT


-- 
Matt Thomas                     email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry              www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.