Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > I see where you're coming from, but it seems like asking for trouble to > encourage any code to be written which uses function names other than > the ones defined by POSIX. So I don't see that defining the names that > POSIX should have used as a net positive step (now, given what POSIX > did).
I agree. NetBSD does things right, but somehow encouraging the write of nonportable code is not The Right Thing, IMO. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz m...@netbsd.org
