httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sascha Schumann <sas...@schumann.cx>
Subject Re: POSIX namespace.
Date Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:09:53 GMT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> 
> > 
> > So, I was talking to somebody at O'Reilly, and it turns out that POSIX has
> > the entire _t namespace.  Do we want to change all of our names before we
> > release our first beta, or are we okay with infringing on POSIX?
> 
>     Actually, this is not the case. 

    Here SUS III and POSIX differ significantly. Whereas SUS III
    does not make any statement about reserving suffices, POSIX
    "2.7.2 POSIX.1 Symbols" clearly states

        "If any header defined by this part of ISO/IEC 9945 is
        included, all symbols with the suffix _t are reserved for
        use by the implementation, both before and after the
        #include directive."
    
    If I had to make the decision, I'd choose to follow the rules
    of the new/future standard. 
    
    - Sascha


Mime
View raw message