POSIX sucks
/ Fredrik (Naranek) Hubinette (Real Build Master)
Previous text:
2002-09-03 17:41: Subject: argv[0]?
What I understood from the previous discussion, some people don't consider POSIX calls portable (mainly because Win32 doesn't support the calls). If my understanding is correct, then I must say that I don't like the approach. POSIX is much more of a standard than Win32 will ever be (i.e. how can something used by one company and one family of products be a standard?)
/ Marek Habersack (Grendel)
Examples? The thing that immediately comes to mind for me is NetSessionEnum() and related calls, which were very clumsily designed. Especially in their requiring the caller to specify a "level" which was different depending on what flavour of the operating system it was, even though the requested functionality was essentially the same. And that each "level" had a different kind of struct that it returned as a result (even though the struct's were very similar), instead of having a larger struct and just leave some fields empty in the less informative "levels".
/ Leif Stensson, Lysator
Previous text:
2002-09-04 00:07: Subject: argv[0]?
Not as much. Actually. At least not the low-level things.
/ Per Hedbor ()
Basically, threads works way better. Probably because they where not grafted on as an afterthought like in POSIX.
/ Per Hedbor ()
Previous text:
2002-09-05 16:36: Subject: argv[0]?
Examples? The thing that immediately comes to mind for me is NetSessionEnum() and related calls, which were very clumsily designed. Especially in their requiring the caller to specify a "level" which was different depending on what flavour of the operating system it was, even though the requested functionality was essentially the same. And that each "level" had a different kind of struct that it returned as a result (even though the struct's were very similar), instead of having a larger struct and just leave some fields empty in the less informative "levels".
/ Leif Stensson, Lysator
pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se