On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:55 +0100, C H Forsyth wrote: > >they emphatically don't go for posix semantics... > > what are "posix semantics"?
I'll bite: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/ [ anything else that would take an FD as an argument ] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/ Thanks, Roman.
