Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!jsq
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: qfork() (the spawn of Spawn())
Message-ID: <17064@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 91 20:30:50 GMT
References: <16213@cs.utexas.edu> <16875@cs.utexas.edu> <16992@cs.utexas.edu> <17010@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: jsq@cs.utexas.edu
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 32
Approved: jsq@cs.utexas.edu (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)

I said:
> >POSIX is not supposed to be a standard for UNIX only. In many non-UNIX
> >environments a "decent implementation of fork" is quite difficult ...

In article <17010@cs.utexas.edu> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> Excuse me, but you're quite wrong.  P1003 decided deliberately that we
> (I was there) would not compromise the (1003.1) interface in order to
> accommodate "layered" implementations, for example on non-UNIX based
> operating system kernels.

I don't think I'm wrong here, unless you're leaving something out.

There's a difference between:

	P1003 will not compromise the interface to accomodate
	layered implementations.

And:

	P1003 is for UNIX only.

And I fail to see how an extension that happens to make it easier to
write portable programs that remain reasonably efficient on layered
implementations compromises the interface. Nobody's saying "get rid
of fork()" this time.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"

Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 75