🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jeremy.810996048@suede.sw.oz.au>, jeremy@sw.oz.au (Jeremy Fitzhardinge) writes
: This is getting pretty silly.  Why have the standard define something
: completely undefined?  It would be impossible for a conforming program
: to use such a sys_exit() without knowing what OS_RET_TYPE is, which
: means it can't be used unless a specific OS is targeted, which means it
: would be non-portable.  There's no point in having the standard define
: a feature which can't be used portably.
No, it is all implementational.  For "exit" there alreddie are macros
"EXIT_SUCCESS" and "EXIT_FAILURE", which can be anie 'int' at all.  This
is but one step further, hiding the type, too.  Nothing wrong with that.
The standard defines at least "SYS_EXIT_SUCCESS" and "SYS_EXIT_FAILURE",
and the implementation defines more as the implementors see fit.

: The standard defines two states a program can terminate with:  success
: and failure.  If you want to communicate a non-standard state to the
: environment, you have to use a non-standard interface, and have it
: become a non-conforming program.  By definition, the standard doesn't,
: and shouldn't, cover non-standard interfaces.
This is all tautologous:  all names that the standard defines are standard,
even if the name is "TIXE_GNINRAW".  That the standard defines onlie success
and failure, that means no more than this, that its writers limited themselvs
to success and failure when thei wrote it.  I believ that the truth of this
is that their Unix-experiens led them to this.