On 16.9.2013 2:51, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: > On 15 September 2013 21:19, Martin Decky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > [...] > > > > This still allows you to name this new function differently and keep > the old open() as a compatibility wrapper. > > [...] > > > You can either conservatively extend the arguments or reimplement > the original read() and write() as wrappers. > > [...] > > > Yes, but this does not forbid you to keep the original API for the > original use cases and naturally extend the API for the new use cases. > > [...] > > > For now I reintroduced the original functions as wrappers (taken from > older repository; not particularly elegant right now) and reverted most > of the unnecessary changes. You should find the current revision much > closer to the mainline. I also addressed some of the style issues you > pointed out.
Seriously, I think reverting to support also the old API for the sake of compatibility with its own former self is the wrong way to go. Now, lots of Unixisms that should only be part of libposix will continue to be part of our libc and the confusion about how much it actually is and is not POSIX will go on. I still don't get it why should we still provide a POSIX-similar interface in libc, when there is a clean generalization and purification available? Jakub _______________________________________________ HelenOS-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel
