In message: <20070501135439.B36275_at_thor.farley.org> "Sean C. Farley" <sean-freebsd_at_farley.org> writes: : On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrey Chernov wrote: : : > All backed out. : > : > Not because I admit they are technically wrong and not because of bug : > reports (I receive nothing). But because I surprisingly meets so : > strong opposition and resistance so lost any desire to continue that. : > : > Anyone who interested in POSIX can dig out what changes and how : > through cvs diffs. : : I am the one writing a replacement for the *env() functions. I have a : BSD (mostly the same except unsetenv() returns an int) version and a : POSIX version. : : Questions for developers to help me proceed: : 1. Would POSIX or BSD be preferred? By POSIX, I do not necessarily mean : completely POSIX. It can be some shade of gray. For example, I : added some checking to putenv() that is not mentioned in the POSIX : spec but makes it closer to setenv() in its errors. : 2. Would a series of stages to move from BSD to POSIX be : acceptable/desired? This is to avoid POSIX from overwhelming people. : 3. How about dropping putenv() altogether? :) putenv() is ugly. My : changes currently prevent setenv() from leaking like a sieve, so the : need for putenv() should not be as necessary. It could also be that : shade of gray where putenv() stayed the way it is (wrapper around : setenv()) while the rest can be POSIX. These are good questions. They should likely be talked about in arch_at_ WarnerReceived on Wed May 02 2007 - 14:29:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:09 UTC