Paul Eggert wrote:
> For what it's worth, Solaris and glibc both document these functions.
And they implement them differently [1]. As was to be expected for functions
for which no standardization organization has considered an unambiguous
specification.
Bruno
[1] http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - Standardizing functions starting with '__' would encourage users to
> adopt similar naming conventions (since users often use conventions
> prototyped by the OS vendors)
I'm not that worried about it. I think users will know what they're
get
> Huh? cygwin does not currently provide fpurge.
Oops, yes. I meant fpurge on MacOS X. It returns 'int'.
Bruno
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> > But the function names use leading __ in both Solaris and glibc, and I
> > expect that if they are ever standardized they'll be standardized with
> > the leading __.
>
> I sincerely hope no standardization group would do such a mistake:
As do I. If it is worth standardi
Paul Eggert wrote:
> But the function names use leading __ in both Solaris and glibc, and I
> expect that if they are ever standardized they'll be standardized with
> the leading __.
I sincerely hope no standardization group would do such a mistake:
- Standardizing functions starting with '__'
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interesting that Solaris has all these. Yes I think such modules would be
> useful in gnulib. Except that the gnulib function names should not have a
> '__' prefix, since '__' is in the system's namespace.
But the function names use leading __ in both So
Eric Blake wrote:
> >The primitives for "fp is not open for writing" can be written in the
> >same spirit as the 'fseterr' and 'fpending' modules.
>
> It sounds like you are asking for __freading:
>
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/806-0627/6j9vhfmre?q=__fpurge&a=view
>
> We probably s
