Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!lll-tis!ptsfa!nonvon!gilsys!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilsys.UUCP (Thomas J Keller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: pointer alignment when int != char *
Message-ID: <1122@gilsys.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 5-Sep-87 12:27:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: gilsys.1122
Posted: Sat Sep  5 12:27:20 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Sep-87 06:22:45 EDT
References: <493@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <6061@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3812@spool.WISC.EDU> <6397@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Consequently Computers, Santa Rosa, Ca
Lines: 23
Summary: sounds pretty paternalistic to me
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.c:4223 comp.unix.wizards:4136

In article <6397@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <625@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Are you saying that the ANSI 'C' library includes all the UNIX date/time
> >functions, but doesn't include lseek?
> It doesn't include open(), read(), write(), fork(), etc. either.
> The reason is that it is probably impossible to specify these
> adequately in a common specification for all systems.  Since the
> stdio routines ARE specified, there is little need for the
> lower-level I/O routines in portable application programming.

   So in other words, Mr. Gwyn, what you are saying is that the ANSI C
workgroup has taken it upon themselves to decide that "portable applications"
programs have NO NEED to do other than straight sequential I/O on files,
is this correct?  How very paternalistic of them! 

   Sounds to me as if some (most?) of the people on that group are making
some pretty heavy assumptions, some of which may well BREAK the usefulness
of the ANSI C standard sufficiently as to render it totally USELESS.

-- 
Tom Keller 
VOICE  : + 1 707 575 9493
UUCP   : {ihnp4,ames,sun,amdahl,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!gilsys!mc68020