yes, it is being worked on but not as a high priority, so Option 2 appears to be a no go. It may be better to revisit the bug and add a test for its availability to sysconf()/getconf as a formal option, in a Coming Attractions sense, so code can be written portably now based on using Option 1 or existing practice. On Thursday, April 16, 2020 Geoff Clare <g...@opengroup.org> wrote: The resolution for bug 1016 says:
Make the changes in Note: 0003485, choosing between option 1 and option 2 during work on the Issue 8 drafts. Option 1 encourages O_NOCLOBBER, option 2 requires it. We resolved it that way in Nov 2016 in the hope that someone would implement O_NOCLOBBER in the not too distant future, which would mean we could then require it in Issue 8. A web search does not turn up any work on it, but perhaps there is some activity by developers that has not yet been made public. Does anyone here know of any such activity? We need to decide what changes, if any, to make for Issue 8 draft 1. I think appropriate choices would be either do nothing (deferring the decision to a later draft), or apply option 1 and submit a bug against Issue 8 draft 1 suggesting that a switch to option 2 could be made in a later draft if someone implements O_NOCLOBBER in the meantime. Switching from option 1 to option 2 would involve a lot of extra editing work on the source, so I would prefer not to apply option 1 for draft 1 if there is a reasonable chance that we will end up switching to option 2 in a later draft. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
