Xref: utzoo comp.unix.programmer:960 alt.sources.d:1427
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!maart
From: maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: -x implementations
Message-ID: <8914@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 1 Feb 91 19:20:25 GMT
References: <1943:Jan2619:34:3591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <2856@charon.cwi.nl> <8869@star.cs.vu.nl> <1991Jan29.153242.12335@convex.com> <8896@star.cs.vu.nl> <19017@rpp386.cactus.org>
Sender: news@cs.vu.nl
Reply-To: maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath)
Organization: VU Dept. of Computer Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Lines: 22

In article <19017@rpp386.cactus.org>,
	jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
)[...]
)>Access(2), a sick system call.  (I _know_ it uses the real uid on
)>purpose.)
)
)The question test(1) is asking is wrong.  test is supposed to return
)whether or not it =is= readable, not whether it =should= be readable.
)
)test(1) is the sick on.  Any version of test(1) which relies on
)access(2) is broken.

Agreed.  I guess many if not most implementations of test(1) are broken
in this way.

BTW, access(2) still hasn't recovered from its illness.

The last thing it wishes to achieve before it dies, is to enter the
Guinness Book of World Records as the system call that received the
most complaints.
--
Temporary files like /tmp/sh$$ are an abomination.