On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:09:41PM +0200, Daniel Bünzli wrote: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Richard Jones <r...@annexia.org> wrote: > > > How about running the external "uname" program. > > Yes, why not. I was hoping that I wouldn't have to resort to that kind > of hacks, that I was missing a function using uname(3) directly. [...]
There is uname(1) and uname(2). Why do you call it "hack"? You could write a C-binding for uname(2), but does the effort makes sense for this call? It's not like you start a whole shell over and over again, just to get the basename of a file for some 100000 files... I would assume the call of uname a thing that will be done once at startup of the program. For many syscalls I think it makes sense to have them in the stdlib, but this one is not the one, where I think it's really urgent to have it. Ciao, Oliver _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
