>>>>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:33:41 -0700, Damien Neil wrote (in part): Damien> On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 04:39:24PM -0400, Spider Boardman Damien> wrote: >> The C (POSIX.1) remove() function is NOT just unlink() in >> drag. Damien> Not everywhere, at least: Damien> REMOVE(3) FreeBSD Library Functions Manual REMOVE(3) Hmm. OK, the reference I have is a combined one for UNIX95, so this may be a question of XPG-only or of *which* POSIX.1 (199309 or 199506), but at least *some* versions of remove(3) are not simply unlink(2) by another name. -- Spider Boardman (at home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The management (my cats) made me say this. http://www.ultranet.com/~spiderb PGP public key fingerprint: 96 72 D2 C6 E0 92 32 89 F6 B2 C2 A0 1C AB 1F DC
- RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Perl6 RFC Librarian
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone skud
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left a... Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone John Porter
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Bart Lateur
- RE: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Myers, Dirk
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Spider Boardman
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left a... Damien Neil
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be le... Spider Boardman
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should ... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be le... Tim Jenness
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Russ Allbery
- RE: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Fisher Mark