Mail Archives: djgpp/1995/04/23/03:51:58
> It hasn't, but one has been _discussed_ for V2. Its functionality,
> however, is the Unix-style ioctl. Please use another name for
> Dos' if you write it so names don't clash in the future. I suggest
> dos_ioctl.
But ioctl is a standard DOS function. If you write a unix version, please
use a different name to avoid clashes. I suggest unix_ioctl. ;-(
Seriously, this is an example of the problem of serving two types of users:
DOS programmers trying to escape 640K limits and unix programmers trying to
port to DOS. I would suggest that the library should not contain a function
called ioctl, rather it should contain both dos_ioctl and unix_ioctl. That
way, someone porting code finds out at link time or earlier that ioctl is a
problem which must be looked at carefully rather than getting strange
failures when ioctl is called with arguments appropriate for another
operating system. A simple #define then selects the desired variant.
- Raw text -