On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
<allb...@ece.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> I think the point here is that on POSIX systems that gets you ioctl() and
> fcntl(), and on non-POSIX systems either they don't exist or they throw
> runtime errors. Aside from my earlier suggestion that non-POSIX systems
> generally have similar functions for which we should consider a common
> rubric, I'm not sure if this ("does IO::POSIX") is backwards or if my/our(?)
> understanding of "does" is backwards, or possibly tangential.
>
IMO IO::POSIX should do exactly what it says it does: implement POSIX
as closely as possible. Since we probably can't implement much of it
on non-POSIX platforms, I don't think it should be part of our
specification (though I do think it should be part of our
implementation, because it is definitely useful).
I think it would be a lot better to implement a more portable wrapper
around the necessary functionality.
Regards,
Leon
