Darren Reed writes: > What happens when they decide to add AF_LINUX because they > don't like UNIX, LOCAL or FILE any more? Sheesh...
I don't think that's going to happen. Reading through the mailing lists, they seem to have added AF_LOCAL out of a belief that POSIX (IEEE 1003.1g) was going to require this. However, I can't find any real supporting information for this belief, and the current POSIX specs mention only AF_UNIX. It looks like a one-time mistake. If anything, folks were vehemently against "innovating" in this area. AF_FILE is in a similar boat. It looks like that was added long ago as some sort of "convenience" feature, perhaps for those who thought that UNIX(tm) was a four letter word. The risk seems extremely low to me. > Although I do wonder if there are #ifdef's for POSIX that you should > be bracketting this in? The spec defines which macros are required, but doesn't prohibit others. I think it should be fine the way it is ... but it's worth a pass through the conformance test group. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
