On 9/12/2013 6:36 AM, Hiroki Sato wrote: > Bryan Drewery <bdrew...@freebsd.org> wrote > in <201309120053.r8c0rc7h082...@svn.freebsd.org>: > > bd> Author: bdrewery (ports committer) > bd> Date: Thu Sep 12 00:53:38 2013 > bd> New Revision: 255486 > bd> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/255486 > bd> > bd> Log: > bd> Consistently reference file descriptors as "fd". 55 other manpages > bd> used "fd", while these used "d" and "filedes". > bd> > bd> MFC after: 1 week > bd> Approved by: gjb > bd> Approved by: re (delphij) > > I think this kind of changes need a consensus because several POSIX > functions use "filedes" in the specification document. r254484 by > pjd was a similar change (s/type/af/ in gethostbyaddr()). > > In SUSv4, fdopen() uses "filedes" and openat() uses "fd", for > example. Consistency throughout our manual pages is generally good. > However, I also see the benefit of using the same expression as the > specification even if it is inconsistent. What do you think? > > -- Hiroki >
I did notice that 'filedes' was referenced in some specs, but it's very weird to open multiple manpages and expect 'fd' and find 'd' and rework my brain to understand that 'd' or 'filedes' is just a 'fd'. Takes a second of thinking. It was "surprising" to me when I noticed it, especially given how many used 'fd'. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
