Joerg Schilling writes: > James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > > > In that case, the right answer is to remove the "sucking" part of the > > Solaris stdio. Since stdio is part of Open Solaris, this is doable. > > > > Bolting a replacement on the side is just wrong because doing so > > assumes that: > > > > - stdio is unchangeable and unfixable (neither of these is correct) > > Are you able to change or fix stdio on AIX?
No. But I don't work on AIX, and AIX isn't open. Solaris *is* open and I *do* work on Solaris. You're also able to change Solaris as you may need. That, to me, is a big difference. (Funny you should mention AIX, as that was a platform I used to use years ago, and the libschily implementation of printf didn't work there due to, as I recall, floating point implementation problems. Ripping it out [and the handful of strange '%r' recursion things] and using the regular libc fixed the problems. This was a good instance of when having a reimplementation was more pain rather than less.) > You are loking from the wrong point of view. > > ksh is not a Solaris only application. I understand that. But when something integrates into Solaris, we have a responsibility to see to it that it does so in a way that's compatible with the rest of the system. Dragging along another stdio that needs to be maintained doesn't quite fit that bill, regardless of why that implementation may be there or what other platform it happens to help. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
