Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!std-unix
From: andrew@lemming.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Replacement for signals in POSIX?
Message-ID: <8364@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jun-87 18:50:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.8364
Posted: Wed Jun 24 18:50:26 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Jun-87 07:18:20 EDT
References: <8300@ut-sally.UUCP>
Sender: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Reply-To: andrew@lemming.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon
Lines: 19
Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu (Moderator, John Quarterman)

From: andrew@lemming.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)

	"My question is, has the POSIX group discussed any alternatives
	to the signal facility?"

The answer is no.  The charter of a standards group is to codify
existing practice, not to invent something new.  All too often this
charter is violated, to the detriment of the community.

[ Unfortunately, it's not always easy to stay on one side of the line.
The signal facilities in POSIX at the moment are not quite like those
in any existing system, i.e., they are to some extent an invention.
This was necessary in order to produce something that was implementable
in the context of the various existing systems.  -mod ]

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew)       [UUCP]
                        (andrew%tekecs.tek.com@relay.cs.net)   [ARPA]

Volume-Number: Volume 11, Number 81