Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 19:09:08 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-Id: <3099-Sat08Mar2003190908+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: 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>
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
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

> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:48:49 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> So we have a choice:
> 
> (1) Always fail the write for redirected stdout, stderr, just in case it's a
> pipe.
> 
> (2) Always allow the write for redirected stdout, stderr.
> 
> Even in the case "foo | bar", the handle still refers to a file, even if it is
> only a temporary one. So (2) seems good and works.

Yes, I think we should take (2).

> But will (2) result in
> behaviour that is Unixy programs don't expect?

I don't think they should be adversely affected.  At most, they will
get a new feature: pwrite doesn't work on Unix not because Unix
doesn't want that, but because it's impossible to implement pwrite
efficiently for pipes.