Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!sun!datsun!shannon
From: shannon%datsun@Sun.COM (Bill Shannon)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: stdio EOF
Message-ID: <68434@sun.uucp>
Date: 15 Sep 88 00:45:15 GMT
References: <813@ms3.UUCP> <1246@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <669@super.ORG> <8495@smoke.ARPA>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 15

In article <8495@smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> I much prefer to fix the
> applications that made the bogus assumption and leave the library alone.

based on the documentation available at the time, it wasn't clear
*which* applications were making bogus assumptions.  all we knew is
that we had a set of applications that were making incompatible
assumptions.  based on our reading of the documentation that was
available, we made the change that you're complaining about.  needless
to say, we did not make this change in isolation, we consulted with
several other experienced UNIX developers and they agreed with us.
I'm sorry we didn't consult you.

I'd be happy to let POSIX or ANSI C or whatever tell us what the
right answer is, but at this point your answer is only different.