On 09/15/2013 09:19 PM, Martin Decky wrote: >> That is perhaps true for the functions currently in mainline. But I add >> a lot of functions that are not present in any file API. Functions like >> restrict(), lookup(), walk(), bind(), select()... > > Fine. But I am not talking about the new functions. > >> open() even has completely different semantics from what it does now. > > This still allows you to name this new function differently and keep the > old open() as a compatibility wrapper. > >> read() and write() would both have unconventional arguments. > > You can either conservatively extend the arguments or reimplement the > original read() and write() as wrappers.
I would personally not shed a tear for the old open(), read(), write() in exchange for the new interface (whatever prefix it uses). And I would like to avoid having something like a half-libposix in libc (enough to have libposix itself), there is just no reason for this second, more usual interface. To use the analogy between Linux and Windows, Windows does not provide open(), read() and write() in NTDLL either and Linux does not provide NtCreateFile(). Jakub _______________________________________________ HelenOS-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel
