🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.std.c, halasz@caip.rutgers.edu wrote
+The error is that the library indeed translated.  We hav prevented the
+programmer who uzes this system from uzing "exit" for _other_ exit-status
+that he knows is to be had on this system.

In article <43esan$85l@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes
+ If a program I wrote returned a condition code of 2048 under MVS
+ via exit(2048), how would you like to translate this into a
+ UNIX environment, where the exit status is confirmed to a
+ single byte?

This is misunderstanding of my words, which mean that the programmer
uzes an exit-status that he _knows_ is there in his implementation, and
for this use is more useful than simple-minded success or failure.  You
refer to code written for one implementation ported to another.  There
is nothing wrong with so dezigning a function such as "exit" as to
allou to-one-implementation meaningful arguments, as under VMS "fopen"
takes arguments not described in the standard.

The requirement that "exit(0)" hav the same meaning as
"exit(EXIT_SUCCESS)" prevents such useful use.