Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!xanth!ukma!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Comments on INSERT.c Message-ID: <333@twwells.uucp> Date: 16 Jan 89 00:31:42 GMT References: <308@twwells.uucp> <313@twwells.uucp> <1354@X.UUCP> Reply-To: bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale Lines: 31 Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <1354@X.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes: : In article <313@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: : > : > 3) The unnecessary code sequences. The lseek's : > The lseek's are completely unnecessary, regardless of omissions in : > the man page. And of course, one should use standard I/O anyway. : > : I just checked the 3 Nov 87 draft of the ANSI C spec. I was astonished to : find that they do not say what the value of the file pointer is after opening : a pathname. Could someone with a recent copy check on this? It's in 4.9.3 of the May 88 draft. : Frankly, I find the statement "..., regardless of omissions in : the man page" offensive from someone complaining about coding style, as it : smacks much too strongly of the "I read the source, I know what it REALLY : does, and all the world's a VAX anyway" mentality. Probably that's not : really what you feel, but that's how it reads. I couldn't. I don't have sources. (Whine :-) What I do know is that it is said in my manual pages, and that all Unixes that I know of do properly open the file at its beginning. Therefore, he either misread the manual page (which is what actually happened) or the manual page has an omission. Consider the number of programs that would break if this weren't so and you'll see why I considered any possible screwup in the manual page to be irrelevant. --- Bill { uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!bill