Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!flaps
From: flaps@utcsri.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Distorting fseek semantics
Message-ID: <5382@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Sep-87 13:43:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.5382
Posted: Fri Sep 11 13:43:08 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 15:13:32 EDT
References: <493@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <6061@brl-smoke.ARPA> <8560@utzoo.UUCP> <1129@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: flaps@utcsri.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal)
Organization: University of Toronto
Lines: 23
Summary: 


In article <1129@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>The portability argument is a red herring.  ANSI is free to add an
>appendix that describes a weaker fseek, in which one cannot directly
>go where one has not sequentially gone before, that nonconforming C
>implementations can provide.  Software developers who really want to
>support all systems, including the ones whose developers refuse to fix
>their punched-card-based designs, could restrict themselves to this
>weaker specification.  The rest of us would be able to write programs
>as we've been writing them for a decade without being accused of not
>conforming to ANSI specs.

You are missing the point of a standard.  If so many systems will be
supporting only the weaker fseek(), what's the point of having everyone
look at you and nod approvingly that you're following the standard,
when your programs are still not portable?

If many people only support the weaker fseek(), then that's all that's
standardized, despite any official ANSI blessing which you are asking
for.  A blessing gets you nothing.  We're trying to be able to write
portable programs.

ajr, C programmer at large