Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!killer!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: pointer alignment when int != char *
Message-ID: <728@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Sep-87 18:15:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: sugar.728
Posted: Mon Sep 14 18:15:02 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Sep-87 08:02:29 EDT
References: <493@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <6061@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3812@spool.WISC.EDU> <27824@sun.uucp>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 23

> OK, who *does* permit "lseek" to use a magic cookie?  Certainly not the ANSI C
> draft standard, as that doesn't contain any description of "lseek".

Nobody official. Just a couple of implementations. I thought I remembered
this was official, but of course what I was thinking of the standard IO
library document's description of fseek. Sigh.

> > Or you implement a byte-oriented one and return an error
> > code when you use it incorrectly. Lseek is permitted to fail on non-seekable
> > files. Even UNIX has these (pipes, terminals...)
> 
> What does "use it incorrectly" mean here?  Use it on any text file?  Use it on
> any file that doesn't support it?  By the time you're done, it's not clear
> you'd have anything better than what you have now.

I mean "use it on any file which doesn't support it". If text files support
it, that's great. If they don't, you'll get an error return from lseek. You
do check your error returns, don't you? (Smileyface. I should really do that
more myself. Should I say a few "Not a Terminal"s and a couple of "Error 0"s
in penance? In the meantime do as I say, not as I do).
-- 
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
--                 'U`      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not seismo!soma (blush)