🚀 go-pugleaf

From: gwyn@brl.arpa (VLD/VMB) (Douglas A. Gwyn)
Date:     Mon, 3 Nov 86 11:31:40 EST

getopt() -- this would depend on adoption of the AT&T "command language
syntax standard", which is in the domain of 1003.2.  This may happen.

curses -- this lies outside the scope of X3J11 and 1003.1.  It would
perhaps be worth standardizing in some other 1003.n working group.

popen() -- this was discussed by X3J11 and excluded, on the grounds that
non-UNIX vendors would find themselves under pressure from customers
to make popen() useful rather than just a stub, and the inability to
do this would lead to unhappiness.  Similar arguments against system()
were somewhat weaker, and although its return value semantics were
reworked, system() survived since it is implementable in a non-trivial
way far more often than popen().

I don't know what problems Mark could have with <memory.h>, since
it isn't in the X3J11 draft proposed standard, nor with memccpy(),
which doesn't exist.  If he meant memcpy(), X3J11 permits SVID
semantics for that now.  (The previous "Rob Pike special" is also
defined, under the name memmove(), since there was no consensus for
preferring either of the two possible specifications for the function.
I suspect in many implementations memmove() and memcpy() will be
synonymous.)

P.S.  The X3J11 draft proposed standard intended for public review and
comment has been printed, but has to receive some sort of official
approval (X3?) before it is actually sent out to the public.  This
will take something like a month longer than originally anticipated,
as I understand it.  Patience!

Volume-Number: Volume 8, Number 28