Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: XtAddInput issue
Message-ID: <9004071729.AA13639@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 7 Apr 90 17:29:24 GMT
References: <7048@decvax.dec.com>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 13


    Further investigation found that the documentation for this function allows
    the first 2 arguments to be defined in an implementation specific manner.

The (R4) documentation states that arguments must be a file descriptor and
a selection of XtInput{Read,Write,Except}Mask on POSIX-based systems, but
that they can vary for other operating systems.  Is it bad to support other
OSes?

    Just how portable is
    an X program going to be, if it uses POSIX or X/Open programming standards?

It should be portable to other POSIX systems.  Does VMS claim POSIX compliance?