Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!longway!std-unix From: rml@hpfcdc.fc.hp.com (Bob Lenk) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: ANSI vs POSIX on Message-ID: <720@longway.TIC.COM> Date: 12 Jun 90 20:48:41 GMT References: <719@longway.TIC.COM> Sender: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net Lines: 28 Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman) From: Bob Lenk In article <719@longway.TIC.COM> karl@IMA.IMA.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) writes: > In an earlier thread in this newsgroup, it was decided that this is in fact a > requirement of POSIX. (Clarified in the Supplement, I believe.) If the user > himself has not included , then the name `pid_t' is not reserved > to the implementation, and so it falls in the user's namespace. It is worth pointing out that official interpretations of an IEEE standard can only be issued by the IEEE. Discussions in this newsgroup (including this posting) can be very informative and useful, but they do not decide the meaning of the standard. In fact, there has been an official request for an interpretation in this area, and I understand the interpretation being issued is that all namespace reserved for the implementation by the 1003.1-1988 standard is reserved whenever any header mentioned in the standard is #included with _POSIX_SOURCE #defined. Draft 5 of the 1003.1a revision (actually 1003.1-199x) makes some changes in this area, but clearly reserves names ending in _t when any POSIX.1 header is included. Bob Lenk rml@hpfcla.hp.com hplabs!hpfcla!rml Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 28