> NetBSD does things right, but somehow encouraging the write of
> nonportable code is not The Right Thing, IMO.
Like the way NetSBD does by providing extensions in libraries, like
glob(3) or regex(3)? By shipping with a compiler that supports (highly
useful, but nonstandard) extensions to C? Like the way int on 64-bit
ports is 32 bits rather than the 64 one would expect from 6.2.5 #5 ("A
``plain'' int object has the natural size suggested by the architecture
of the execution environment ...")? Like the huge number of
nonstandard include files and calls - both library-only and syscalls -
it supports?
I think treating the versions with a misleading f as standards
compatability goop is the right way to go here.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
