Re: [PATCH] POSIX extended API set 2

[manu%netbsd.org@localhost (Emmanuel Dreyfus)]

Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:

> I see where you're coming from, but it seems like asking for trouble to
> encourage any code to be written which uses function names other than
> the ones defined by POSIX.  So I don't see that defining the names that
> POSIX should have used as a net positive step (now, given what POSIX
> did).

I agree. NetBSD does things right, but somehow encouraging the write of
nonportable code is not The Right Thing, IMO.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu%netbsd.org@localhost