>So?  As with the POSIX braindamage, just because someone else does it
>is not, in itself, a reason you/we should do it.

I disagree.  Standardization is, in and of itself, a good thing, and
being like other systems is, in and of itself, a reason to do something.

It is not always a good reason, or a sufficient reason, but there *is*
a benefit there.  (It may easily be outweighed by the losses of a bad
idea.  Consider deciding to go single-tasking "for compatability with
DOS programming style.")

The degree to which standardization is worth pursuing depends on the scope
of the standard, and the applicability.  POSIX compliance, and ANSI/ISO C
compliance, are both relevant and respectable standards, and compliance
with them is desireable.

By contrast, compatability with 4.3BSD is (in some cases) an utter waste
of effort.  (Let's have a show of hands from everyone who would *really*
prefer to have (char *) sprintf.)

None of this is particular to this given case; it applies to nearly any
issue involving extensions, features, or unimplemented features.

(As an example, I'm designing a set of enhancements for printf() for
consideration by C9X, and one of the things I'm doing is examining
existing implementations to see what *they* do.  I won't do the same
things in some cases, but it's a good source for ideas.  I will go
out of my way to avoid having a function with the same name and
radically different semantics.)

-s