Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:07:44 -0500
Message-Id: <200303081707.h28H7i505194@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
CC: eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3E69D8A1.F493B542@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:48:49 +0000)
Subject: Re: New POSIX: pwrite [PATCH]
References: <E18rMih-00011k-00 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <200303071845 DOT h27Ij5d18334 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3E6938EC DOT D9BFE2E4 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3028-Sat08Mar2003113243+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E69D8A1 DOT F493B542 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
Precedence: bulk


> (1) Always fail the write for redirected stdout, stderr, just in case it's a
> pipe.

In djgpp, redirected stdout is always a regular file (unless you
redirect to, say, aux$).  There's no reason to fail the write just
because we think it doesn't make sense.  We should allow the write
whenever we can, and redirected stdout is one such case.

The times when we have to be semantically correct is when DOS would
have us fail the write, yet a posix system would allow it.  I have no
problems allowing something that would otherwise fail on unix ;-)