Joerg Schilling wrote: > Peter Memishian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > If we do decide to promote such a facility, I'd hope we'd find a less >> ugly >> > > interface for it. >> > >> > What is is that you don't like? >> >> For one, the leading underscore in the ioctl name (which is clearly >> implementation namespace). For two, the fact that it's conceptually >> divorced from the utimes(2) family. > > An underscore does not separate functionality.
It isn't separate as in enforcement it is separate as in a leading _ or __ is very very commonly used to mean "this isn't documented, it is an internal or some other form of private interface so go away". Using an ioctl for this interface constrains the implementation to always being an ioctl. I would rather it be "wrapped" in a more appropriate function name - I don't care if it is a POSIX function or a logical extension of one, I'd just rather not see ioctl in the source code. -- Darren J Moffat _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
