Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:17:52 +0100 (MET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: The naming of at()s is a difficult matter |
| |
>> > > > Do you have a better proposal for naming the interfaces? >> > > chownfn maybe. (fd + name) >> > I am not shure if this would match the rules from the Opengroup. >> > Solaris has these interfaces since at least 5 years. >> This is not the cdrecord thread so Solaris is a no-go in this very one. > > FWIW, I think the -at() suffix is just fine, and well established by now (yes, > there is shmat, but the SysV shared memory interfaces are bizarre to begin with > -- hence POSIX shared memory which has real names.) > Yep. Someday, Linux - or rather glibc! for that matter, as it is the one which translates FUNCTIONNAME() into a syscall -- will be like the Windows API. Full of compatibility stuff. And you can't do anything about it :)
Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |