[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility
From: |
ari |
Subject: |
Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:19:06 -0500 |
My argument relates to IEEE Std 1003.1-2003.
ari
address@hidden said this stuff:
> ari <address@hidden> wrote:
> > The thread you mention does follow a similar discussion, but i don't
> > believe it obviates my argument.
>
> You must know by now that they haven't been `done away with'.
> On systems claiming a certain degree of compliance to POSIX,
> they are not recognized by default. However, as already discussed,
> there are ways to enable the old behavior even on those systems.
- "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/02
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Bob Proulx, 2003/11/02
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/02
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility,
ari <=
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Jarc, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Jarc, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/04
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/04
Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/03