[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
POSIX misunderstanding
From: |
Albert Cahalan |
Subject: |
POSIX misunderstanding |
Date: |
17 Aug 2004 12:23:47 -0400 |
POSIX places requirements on both coreutils and
the coreutils users. POSIX-conforming users are
only allowed to use features that are part of the
POSIX standard. For coreutils, POSIX conformance
means that 100% of the standard is correctly
implemented.
In no way does the standard prohibit an implementation
from adding non-standard features, provided that
those features do not conflict with standard usage.
Thus, a POSIX-conforming "head" program may
support a "-1" option. It may also support a
"-2" option, and so on.
This does not conflict with the filename. To open
a filename that starts with a "-", a user is
required to supply the "--" option first.
Note that "head" is a historic BSD tool. You broke
a shitload of stuff when you took out the old
BSD options.
See for yourself that the traditional BSD behavior
is not actually prohibited for the implementation:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/head.html
(It _is_ prohibited for POSIX-conformant _users_,
but you support a great many non-conformant switches
and thus are in no position to argue that way!)
- POSIX misunderstanding,
Albert Cahalan <=
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/08/17
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Paul Eggert, 2004/08/18
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Albert Cahalan, 2004/08/18
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Paul Eggert, 2004/08/18
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Albert Cahalan, 2004/08/18
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Paul Eggert, 2004/08/18
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Albert Cahalan, 2004/08/19
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Paul Eggert, 2004/08/19
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Albert Cahalan, 2004/08/24
- Re: POSIX misunderstanding, Paul Eggert, 2004/08/24