Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef
From: decot@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: access permissions in 1003.1
Message-ID: <1991Jun19.050332.12679@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 18 Jun 91 03:11:51 GMT
References: <1991Jun2.082051.7235@uunet.uu.net>
Sender: usenet@uunet.uu.net (UseNet News)
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 27
Approved: sef@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)
Originator: sef@uunet.UU.NET
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: decot@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)

>> HP solved this, I believe (at least, according to an article in _The Journal
>> of C Language Translation_).  I looked into this, way back when I was
>> involved with development system work, and came up with a couple of
>> solutions, at least one of which will likely be used.  (They're both fairly
>> obvious.)
> 
> HP is *already* claiming Posix compliance, and you say one of the
> solutions "will likely be used".  *That* is precisely the problem.
> 
> 	-mib

Well, it's not a problem in HP's case.  HP first released POSIX.1 conformance
(and XPG3 and ANSI C conformance) in HP-UX 7.0 (completed in November of 1989).

That release included support for secondary definitions as described in the
referenced JoCLT article, and used it to prevent link-time namespace pollution.

I believe that "will be used" was referring to the poster's own system,
not HP-UX.

Dave Decot, HP
Disclaimer: my opinions only.


Volume-Number: Volume 24, Number 12