In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Marc Recht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : > A conforming application cannot make use of facilities outside the : > scope of the standard. This means that if you define : > _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L you don't want RPC. : I don't said that the application is _strictly_ POSIX conforming. It only : wants to use POSIX functions and RPC. : FreeBSD's way seems to be not to define POSIX/XSI (and so) on to : _indirectly_ get it and the BSD stuff
That's right. We take great care to exclude all namespace pollution when you ask for a specific standard. : Another idea would be to make a WANT_STRICT_POSIX. WANT_STRICT_POSIX is namespace pollution. : > Not really. Conforming applications have no trouble (obviously), : > pseudo-conforming applications only need a little work (removing bogus : > POSIX keywords that specify conformance), and non-conforming BSD : > applications (the majority of software) have no problems. : I had this in mind. : http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/xbd_chap02.html: : : A conforming implementation shall meet all of the following criteria: : [...] : 4. The system may provide additional utilities, functions, or facilities : not required by IEEE Std 1003.1-2001. may != MUST. We do not pollute the name space. Providing additional facilities pollutes the name space, breaking strictly conforming programs. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
