In article <559d8e55.9050...@freebsd.org> a...@freebsd.org writes: >I am not suggesting this but if our man pages used all capitals to signify >important auxiliary verbs then the ERRORS sections would read as > The following error codes MAY be set in errno: >Perhaps in that case it would be more clear how 'MAY' differs from 'SHOULD' and >'MUST'. >Of course, the manual pages seem to be too sloppy in this respect.
No, it's just the standard meaning of "may" as defined in the POSIX standard. ISO standards in general use "shall" for mandatory behavior and "may" for optional behavior. (For every occurrence of the word "shall" in the POSIX standard, there should be a conformance test; "may" covers behavior where implementations are allowed to differ with no conformance distinction being made.) In the specific case of library interfaces, "may fail and set the following code in errno" is slightly more restrictive: the implementation is required to raise that error if the associated condition is detected, but it is not required to detect that condition even if it is present, and it may indicate some other error condition that is present and detectable. -GAWollman  Technically, this applies only to "shall" where the subject is the implementation. POSIX also includes "shall" requirements on applications, which obviously can't be tested. _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"