Date:	Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:45:05 -0500
Message-Id:	<200303071845.h27Ij5d18334@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning:	envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT delorie DOT com using -f
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<E18rMih-00011k-00@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
	(rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk)
Subject:	Re: New POSIX: pwrite [PATCH]
References:	<E18rMih-00011k-00 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> I was unsure whether to duplicate the information about handling
> out-of-space errors or just refer to the write page from the pwrite page.
> Any thoughts?

I think referring to the write page is fine.

> +   /* Is this a redirected standard handle: stdout, stderr?
> +    * I.e.: are the standard handles pipes? Disallow on pipes. */
> +   switch(fd) {
> +   case STDOUT_FILENO:
> +   case STDERR_FILENO:
> +     if (isatty(fd) == 0) {

Why not just call isatty() for all fds?  stderr/stdout aren't the only
fds that can be redirected.  Consider that at least stdaux and stdprn
are also ttys.

> + @portability !ansi, !posix-1003.2-1992, posix-1003.1-2001

I'm wondering if, given the plethora of new standards coming out, we
should rethink how the portability tags work.  Maybe we should just
note the standards where the functions were first introduced, and
elide the !s for superceded standards?  I.e., in this case, the two !s
would be redundant if you say it was added in posix-1003.1-2001.

- Raw text -