Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: fopen ( ..., "a" ) --- how does the "a" work? Message-ID: <7283@ficc.uu.net> Date: 13 Dec 89 14:54:20 GMT References: <3250@hub.UUCP> <1989Dec7.130813.4992@virtech.uucp> <11775@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1989Dec9.000805.1617@chinet.chi.il.us> <11785@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1989Dec12.054345.1597@chinet.chi.il.us> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 29 Names removed to protect the guilty. a>On a single-user non-multitasking system, a better implementation would a>be to seek to the end only on the initial open, not for each write. b>But what if the single-user non-multitasking system is networked to b>a shared filesystem and you would like your log files to work? a>Suggest you look up "system" in a decent engineering textbook. a>You described a system that doesn't fit my qualifiers. b>I fail to see how providing each user-level process with its own CPU b>and i/o facilities would break anyone's concept of a "system". Now it's not a single-user non-multitasking system. That is, you didn't fit his qualifiers. Like he said. Now for something completely different: b>Do you mean that all filesystem clients and servers must maintain state b>information to be worthy of being called a "system"? Well, it's a quality of information issue. But I agree with P1003.1 on this one... stateless NFA isn't acceptable. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com