Article View: comp.std.unix
Article #478Re: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.4: Real-time Extensions
From: Jim Kingdon
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 1990 12:25
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 1990 12:25
14 lines
1033 bytes
1033 bytes
From: kingdon@ai.mit.edu (Jim Kingdon) One obvious (if a little wishy-washy) solution is to not specify whether the namespaces are the same. That is, applications are required to use a valid path, and have to be prepared for things like unwritable directories, but implementations are not required to check for those things. This makes sense in light of the fact that there seems to be a general lack of consensus about which is best. Even though there is existing practice for both ways of doing things, it may be premature to standardize either behavior now. Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 76
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<479@usenix.ORG>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucbvax!usenix!std-unixShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucbvax!usenix!std-unix From: kingdon@ai.mit.edu (Jim Kingdon) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.4: Real-time Extensions Message-ID: <479@usenix.ORG> Date: 31 Aug 90 12:25:17 GMT Sender: std-unix@usenix.ORG Lines: 14 Approved: jsq@usenix.org (Moderator, John Quarterman) X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net