Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!jbc
From: jms@apple.com (John Michael Sovereign)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: _POSIX_1_SOURCE (was: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.1: System services)interface
Message-ID: <9997@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 12 Jul 90 03:27:28 GMT
References: <9951@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: jbc@cs.utexas.edu
Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Apple Computer
Lines: 37
Approved: jbc@cs.utexas.edu (Guest Moderator, John B. Chambers)

From:  jms@apple.com (John Michael Sovereign)


In article <9951@cs.utexas.edu> jason@cnd.hp.com (Jason Zions) writes:

> This makes the assumption that there is indeed a single POSIX name space,
> to which pieces are added by the various working groups. This assumption,
> while a reasonable one, is in fact not correct.

There is, however, a single C language name space which new standards (and 
revisions)
pollute as long as they continue to use header files already defined by 
ANSI C and/or POSIX.1
(as I believe Doug Gwyn pointed out recently).

> The various 1003.* working groups are *not* developing separate 
components
> of an overall, integrated POSIX standard. Each POSIX standard stands 
alone....

>From what I've heard, there HAS been discussion at the ISO level of 
bundling the C language
interfaces of POSIX.2 and/or POSIX.4 into future versions of 9945-1.  
Unfortunately, a decision on this matter might be delayed until after the 
IEEE standards have been adopted....

As far as _POSIX_1_SOURCE goes, it's not clear to me why the existing 
_POSIX_SOURCE
can't be used (perhaps modified) for this purpose.

John Sovereign
jms@apple.com
"Perhaps software developers should face the same legal support 
requirements as parents."


Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 121