Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!uwmacc!uwmcsd1!ig!jade!ucbcad!ames!oliveb!sun!gorodish!guy From: guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: /bin/test and stat(2) [actually meaning of null pathname] Message-ID: <31904@sun.uucp> Date: Sat, 24-Oct-87 23:04:44 EST Article-I.D.: sun.31904 Posted: Sat Oct 24 23:04:44 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 27-Oct-87 01:31:26 EST References: <9723@brl-adm.ARPA> <1063@moscom.UUCP> <30667@sun.uucp> <501@riddle.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.uucp Lines: 23 Keywords: POSIX, 1003.1, SVID, X/OPEN, FIPS, standards > Apparently POSIX won't cut it as a Federal Information Processing Standard > unless this and a number of other vaguenesses are cleared up. The consensus of the meeting in question was that, in a large number of cases, the behavior of POSIX systems *should* be left unspecified; there was no benefit to nailing the behavior down (there are at most three programs in all of SunOS, for instance, that use the "kill" system call with a process ID argument of -1; applications other than system shutdown commands - which are supplied by the vendor, not written by users - should not *care* whether this causes the signal to be sent to the process doing the "kill"). In the particular case of a null pathname, the consensus of the meeting was that a null pathname should be treated as an error, with error code ENOENT. This may or may not end up being what the FIPS says. POSIX will probably continue to allow either behavior, which is not a problem; there is no reason for an application to explicitly use a null string as a pathname, and those applications that might do so implicitly can just let the chips fall where they may (if they don't treat a null string specially already, e.g. a command that prompts you for a pathname and, if you just type RETURN, uses a default pathname, or uses the last one you typed at it, or complains, or exits, or...). Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.com