Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!elroy!mahendo!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!lmiller
From: lmiller@venera.isi.edu (Larry Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: What real non-UNIX 'C' compilers implement...
Message-ID: <3545@venera.isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 10-Sep-87 12:40:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: venera.3545
Posted: Thu Sep 10 12:40:38 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 18:37:21 EDT
References: <672@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: lmiller@venera.isi.edu.UUCP (Larry Miller)
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California
Lines: 25

In article <672@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>To: Doug Gwynn.
>
>Mail is off the hook, so I'll post a reply here. I think it's of general
>interest, anyway.
>
>> [ Doug sent me mail saying most non-UNIX 'C' compilers probably don't
>>   implement read/write anyway ]
>
>Well, actually, every non-UNIX 'C' compiler I've used has had read and write.

>  And lots more stuff about how everyone uses read and write anyhow.

The problem goes beyond just read and write, to any OS system calls.  The
new Turbo C makes things worse because, unlike UNIX which separates system
calls (Section 2 in the manual) from C library routines (Section 3), Turbo
C just gloms them all in alphabetical order in the reference manual.  NO
new programmer to C would have any inclination that some calls are portable
C, and some are DOS specific.

A good reorganiztion of the Turbo C reference manual is in order.

Larry Miller
USC/ISI
lmiller@venera.isi.edu (no uucp)