Hi ,
in some code i observe that files are opened using 'open'
command, but some code uses '_open' call, what is the difference if
any, i have seen a lot of functions called using '_' as first
character, i wanted to know what they signify.
thanks,
pravin 35 4952 pr***********@gmail.com wrote: Hi , in some code i observe that files are opened using 'open' command, but some code uses '_open' call, what is the difference if any, i have seen a lot of functions called using '_' as first character, i wanted to know what they signify.
On POSIX-compliant systems, open() is a function to open and/or create a
file. The _open() function could be anything platform-specific; check
the documentation of your operating system for more info.
--
:wq
^X^Cy^K^X^C^C^C^C pr***********@gmail.com writes: in some code i observe that files are opened using 'open' command, but some code uses '_open' call, what is the difference if any, i have seen a lot of functions called using '_' as first character, i wanted to know what they signify.
Neither "open" nor "_open" is defined by the C standard.
<OT>POSIX defined an open() function. I don't know about _open.
Try a newsgroup that deals with whatever system you're using.</OT>
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. pr***********@gmail.com wrote: in some code i observe that files are opened using 'open' command, but some code uses '_open' call, what is the difference if any, i have seen a lot of functions called using '_' as first character, i wanted to know what they signify.
They signify that the programmer was ignorant. In general all
identifiers starting with '_' are reserved for the implementation.
Standard C does not have any such function as open or _open.
--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@maineline.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE maineline address!
CBFalconer wrote: pr***********@gmail.com wrote:
in some code i observe that files are opened using 'open' command, but some code uses '_open' call, what is the difference if any, i have seen a lot of functions called using '_' as first character, i wanted to know what they signify.
They signify that the programmer was ignorant.
Balderdash. They may merely signify that the programmer
chose to use APIs and interfaces outside the realm of the C
Standard. That is to say, the programmer was employing *more*
knowledge than the C Standard imparts, and is therefore the
very opposite of ignorant.
Now, it is possible that the programmer did not actually
need the beyond-C capabilities he wound up using, that his
choice to use them was ill-informed. If so, the case for
ignorance might be made. But since you and I know absolutely
zero, zilch, nada about the situation confronting that anonymous
programmer, we are in no position to make such rash judgements.
Lighten up!
--
Eric Sosman es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid
Keith Thompson wrote: pr***********@gmail.com writes: in some code i observe that files are opened using 'open' command, but some code uses '_open' call, what is the difference if any, i have seen a lot of functions called using '_' as first character, i wanted to know what they signify.
Neither "open" nor "_open" is defined by the C standard.
<OT>POSIX defined an open() function. I don't know about _open. Try a newsgroup that deals with whatever system you're using.</OT>
When I started programming 15 years ago we used _open, _read, _write
and _close instead of any standard function. They where the
implementation defined file handling functions for DOS in our case.
While a realise now what the difference is between say fopen and _open
(standard and implementation defined) I am still not sure why we chose
to use _open rather than fopen, although I suspect that my boss figured
that if fopen had, ultimately, to call _open that we might as well cut
out the middleman and call _open directly thus saving on processor
time.
Of course this would make the code non-portable but since we were
writing programs to run on Windows 2 at the time I suspect this was not
a huge consideration.
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes: pr***********@gmail.com wrote: in some code i observe that files are opened using 'open' command, but some code uses '_open' call, what is the difference if any, i have seen a lot of functions called using '_' as first character, i wanted to know what they signify.
They signify that the programmer was ignorant. In general all identifiers starting with '_' are reserved for the implementation. Standard C does not have any such function as open or _open.
I think that that function is Microsoft's attempt at writing something
somewhat POSIX compliant. They have _open and _wopen which do the same
thing they do under UNIX (_wopen is for wchar_t). You even need to
include the same headers to use them.
--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)
In article <b1*************@ukato.freeshell.org>,
Nelu <pl****@do.not.spam.me> wrote: I think that that function is Microsoft's attempt at writing something somewhat POSIX compliant. They have _open and _wopen which do the same thing they do under UNIX (_wopen is for wchar_t). You even need to include the same headers to use them.
But Unix doesn't have functions called _open or _wopen.
-- Richard ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes: In article <b1*************@ukato.freeshell.org>, Nelu <pl****@do.not.spam.me> wrote:
I think that that function is Microsoft's attempt at writing something somewhat POSIX compliant. They have _open and _wopen which do the same thing they do under UNIX (_wopen is for wchar_t). You even need to include the same headers to use them.
But Unix doesn't have functions called _open or _wopen.
That's why I said "something somewhat POSIX compliant". :-)
Windows _open does the same thing that UNIX open does.
Were you expecting Microsoft to actually play nice about this? :-)
--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)
Richard Tobin wrote: Nelu <pl****@do.not.spam.me> wrote:
I think that that function is Microsoft's attempt at writing something somewhat POSIX compliant. They have _open and _wopen which do the same thing they do under UNIX (_wopen is for wchar_t). You even need to include the same headers to use them.
But Unix doesn't have functions called _open or _wopen.
And Microsoft never attempts to comply with standards, they attempt
to sabotage them. Portability away from anything Microsoftian is
an evil concept to them.
--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@maineline.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE maineline address!
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes: Richard Tobin wrote: Nelu <pl****@do.not.spam.me> wrote: I think that that function is Microsoft's attempt at writing something somewhat POSIX compliant. They have _open and _wopen which do the same thing they do under UNIX (_wopen is for wchar_t). You even need to include the same headers to use them.
But Unix doesn't have functions called _open or _wopen.
And Microsoft never attempts to comply with standards, they attempt to sabotage them. Portability away from anything Microsoftian is an evil concept to them.
That's a considerable overstatement.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Keith Thompson wrote: CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes: Richard Tobin wrote: Nelu <pl****@do.not.spam.me> wrote:
I think that that function is Microsoft's attempt at writing something somewhat POSIX compliant. They have _open and _wopen which do the same thing they do under UNIX (_wopen is for wchar_t). You even need to include the same headers to use them.
But Unix doesn't have functions called _open or _wopen.
And Microsoft never attempts to comply with standards, they attempt to sabotage them. Portability away from anything Microsoftian is an evil concept to them.
That's a considerable overstatement.
Emphasis mine. The history seems to bear it out.
--
Some informative links:
news:news.announce.newusers http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
In article <44***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.net> wrote: And Microsoft never attempts to comply with standards, they attempt to sabotage them.
This may be true, but I have been on standards committees with people
from Microsoft and they have generally been very reasonable. The most
obvious negative tendency I have noticed works in a rather different
way: Microsoft is happy for standards to be many and complicated,
because they are big enough to implement anything,
-- Richard ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes: In article <44***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.net> wrote:
And Microsoft never attempts to comply with standards, they attempt to sabotage them.
This may be true, but I have been on standards committees with people from Microsoft and they have generally been very reasonable. The most obvious negative tendency I have noticed works in a rather different way: Microsoft is happy for standards to be many and complicated, because they are big enough to implement anything,
It's one thing to believe that you can implement anything and a
totally different thing to implement everything properly.
--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)
Richard Tobin wrote: CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.net> wrote:
And Microsoft never attempts to comply with standards, they attempt to sabotage them.
This may be true, but I have been on standards committees with people from Microsoft and they have generally been very reasonable. The most obvious negative tendency I have noticed works in a rather different way: Microsoft is happy for standards to be many and complicated, because they are big enough to implement anything,
I'm sure that's true. The people who do the work are probably
quite reasonable. But when it comes to corporate policy and the
great god the almighty buck, the attitude is quite different. How
else do you explain the mangling of html standards, for example,
and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
--
Some useful references about C:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
<http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)
<http://clc-wiki.net> (C-info)
On 2006-06-16, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote: Richard Tobin wrote: CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.net> wrote:
And Microsoft never attempts to comply with standards, they attempt to sabotage them.
This may be true, but I have been on standards committees with people from Microsoft and they have generally been very reasonable. The most obvious negative tendency I have noticed works in a rather different way: Microsoft is happy for standards to be many and complicated, because they are big enough to implement anything,
I'm sure that's true. The people who do the work are probably quite reasonable. But when it comes to corporate policy and the great god the almighty buck, the attitude is quite different. How else do you explain the mangling of html standards, for example, and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
I'm not sure that it's possible for sheer red tape and incompetence to
explain the HTML butchering. There's something far more sinister
behind there; MS has repeatedly attempted to take over the Internet.
I've always wondered why people work for Microsoft. It used to be a great
company, but now it seems to simply be a morale drain. Working for MS is
enough of a resume boost that employees could get whatever job they wanted.
--
Andrew Poelstra < http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog >
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
I know that area of town like the back of my head.
Andrew Poelstra wrote: I've always wondered why people work for Microsoft.
They pay well :)
--
Ian Collins. ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote: In article <44***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.net> wrote:
And Microsoft never attempts to comply with standards, they attempt to sabotage them.
This may be true, but I have been on standards committees with people from Microsoft and they have generally been very reasonable.
That's as may be, but their actual software rarely bears this out.
Richard
CBFalconer wrote: Richard Tobin wrote: Nelu <pl****@do.not.spam.me> wrote:
I think that that function is Microsoft's attempt at writing something somewhat POSIX compliant. They have _open and _wopen which do the same thing they do under UNIX (_wopen is for wchar_t). You even need to include the same headers to use them.
But Unix doesn't have functions called _open or _wopen.
And Microsoft never attempts to comply with standards, they attempt to sabotage them. Portability away from anything Microsoftian is an evil concept to them.
ISTM that standards would be odious to Microsoft. Evil is their business.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> wrote: How else do you explain the mangling of html standards, for example,
Because MS saw a need for more sophisticated web page functionality
and wanted to corner the market. Just a guess of course.
and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no
large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation
handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess.
I'm no MS apologist, but I don't think its sensible to blame a company
for taking commercial decisions. Since when did they become a charity?
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
On 2006-06-16, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
How else do you explain the mangling of html standards, for example, Because MS saw a need for more sophisticated web page functionality and wanted to corner the market. Just a guess of course.
You mean 'halluncinated' instead of 'saw', right? Because I happily use
lynx (that's what IE drove me to, because Firefox was just too similar).
If there was really a "need" for more sophisticaled web page functionality,
lynx wouldn't exist, now would it? and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess.
No, it doesn't. It frequently barfs on code I've written that gcc accepts
(with all warnings set).
Of course, such code usually segfaults, but visual studio shouldn't try
to stop that with cryptic compiler errors. I'm not looking for memory
leaks in code that won't compile.
I'm no MS apologist, but I don't think its sensible to blame a company for taking commercial decisions. Since when did they become a charity?
Since when did they become Satan?
Your guesses are interesting, but they just aren't cynical enough to be
true.
--
Andrew Poelstra < http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog >
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
I know that area of town like the back of my head.
Andrew Poelstra said: On 2006-06-16, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip> and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess. No, it doesn't. It frequently barfs on code I've written that gcc accepts (with all warnings set).
Do you have an example of an ISO C program that you would expect the MS
compiler to compile, but which it "barfs" on (bearing in mind the fact that
they don't claim to support C99)?
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999 http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Mark McIntyre wrote: On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess.
Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.
--
Ian Collins.
In article <sl**********************@localhost.localdomain> ,
Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@localhost.localdomain> wrote: If there was really a "need" for more sophisticaled web page functionality, lynx wouldn't exist, now would it?
If there was really a need for web pages, the human race would never
have evolved.
-- Richard
Andrew Poelstra wrote: On 2006-06-16, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
How else do you explain the mangling of html standards, for example,
Because MS saw a need for more sophisticated web page functionality and wanted to corner the market. Just a guess of course.
You mean 'halluncinated' instead of 'saw', right? Because I happily use lynx (that's what IE drove me to, because Firefox was just too similar).
If there was really a "need" for more sophisticaled web page functionality, lynx wouldn't exist, now would it?
Mozilla follows W3C standards, unlike IE. The fact that some MS ideas
find their way into standards, doesn't make the standards invalid. MS
not following the standards they contribute to is another story...
--
Ian Collins.
On 2006-06-16, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote: Andrew Poelstra said:
On 2006-06-16, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess. No, it doesn't. It frequently barfs on code I've written that gcc accepts (with all warnings set).
Do you have an example of an ISO C program that you would expect the MS compiler to compile, but which it "barfs" on (bearing in mind the fact that they don't claim to support C99)?
Nope. I lost all that code when I formatted the drive for Linux.
I haven't used VC++ in several years, and then it was version 6. It had some
issues with pointers, if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure that I was
attempting to compile C code as C++ as well.
Being as I made a claim that I have no ability to back up, I'd say that this
conversation is over and I was (probably) wrong.
--
Andrew Poelstra < http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog >
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
I know that area of town like the back of my head.
Andrew Poelstra said: I haven't used VC++ in several years, and then it was version 6. It had some issues with pointers, if I remember correctly.
I've used Version 6 a heck of a lot, and never once encountered any issues
with pointers. It is quite likely that your code was at fault, I'm afraid.
I'm pretty sure that I was attempting to compile C code as C++ as well.
And that wouldn't help matters. :-)
Being as I made a claim that I have no ability to back up, I'd say that this conversation is over and I was (probably) wrong.
Yes, I think that's probably the case (apart from the bit about the
conversation being over - these things tend to rumble on for a little
while, like summer lightning after the main storm).
Oh, talking of which... I've been in London for a few days. On Tuesday, I
was sat at a desk at ground level, by an open window, during a
thunderstorm. There was this almighty, colossal BANG, almost deafening, and
the whole room lit up. A non-trivial pressure wave came through the open
window and ruffled my feathers somewhat (as well as setting off the fire
alarm), and I decided now would be a good time to stand up and duck at the
same time, MOVE, and then turn around at a reasonably safe distance to see
whether the place had been bombed or something.
Up until then, the closest I'd been to a lightning strike was about 120-130
yards (known so precisely because it set a tree alight, so its point of
impact was known). This one, I can't say for sure, but I'd guess it was
within 20-50 yards or so.
The strike fried a microfilter and a router. Not my kit, btw - I use
lightning-rated surge protection for this very reason. And UPS.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999 http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes: Mark McIntyre wrote: On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess. Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.
It is my understanding that Windows NT only implemented a minimal set
of requirements to earn POSIX certification.
--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)
Nelu wrote: Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess.
Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.
It is my understanding that Windows NT only implemented a minimal set of requirements to earn POSIX certification.
NT predates C99.
--
Ian Collins.
Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes: Nelu wrote: Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
>and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess.
Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.
It is my understanding that Windows NT only implemented a minimal set of requirements to earn POSIX certification. NT predates C99.
I thought that Windows 2000 relied heavily on Windows NT code. Maybe
I'm wrong. Anyway, doesn't Windows 2000 (and XP) have POSIX certification?
--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)
Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes: Mark McIntyre wrote: On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess. Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.
POSIX is hardly the only reason to want a C99 compiler.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Keith Thompson wrote: Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
and the refusal to make any attempt to implement C99?
Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess.
Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.
POSIX is hardly the only reason to want a C99 compiler.
Did I say it was?
That doesn't detract form the fact that it is /a/ reason.
--
Ian Collins.
Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes: Keith Thompson wrote: Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler. POSIX is hardly the only reason to want a C99 compiler. Did I say it was?
Did I say you said it was?
That doesn't detract form the fact that it is /a/ reason.
True enough (though it's not a reason that would have occurred to me).
Semi-seriously, I suppose I did imply that I thought that you had
implied that that was the only reason. I withdraw the implication.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Keith Thompson wrote: Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes:
Keith Thompson wrote:
Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com> writes: [...] Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.
POSIX is hardly the only reason to want a C99 compiler.
Did I say it was?
Did I say you said it was?
That doesn't detract form the fact that it is /a/ reason.
True enough (though it's not a reason that would have occurred to me).
Semi-seriously, I suppose I did imply that I thought that you had implied that that was the only reason. I withdraw the implication.
:)
--
Ian Collins.
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:50:28 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
How else do you explain the mangling of html standards, for example, Because MS saw a need for more sophisticated web page functionality
Snigger. For values of "sophisticated" equal to "byzantine, top-heavy,
and likely to break - but full of the chrome and blinkenlichten that hoi
polloi like so much".
and wanted to corner the market.
Now _there_ ye'r not wrong.
Richard
In article <TO******************************@comcast.com>,
Eric Sosman <es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid> wrote: CBFalconer wrote:
pr***********@gmail.com wrote:
in some code i observe that files are opened using 'open' command, but some code uses '_open' call, what is the difference if any, i have seen a lot of functions called using '_' as first character, i wanted to know what they signify.
They signify that the programmer was ignorant.
Balderdash. They may merely signify that the programmer chose to use APIs and interfaces outside the realm of the C Standard. That is to say, the programmer was employing *more* knowledge than the C Standard imparts, and is therefore the very opposite of ignorant.
Uh oh. Now you've stepped in it.
As I've pointed out many times, you're either in the cabal or you're
out. What will the cabal do with you now? This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Jerry Gaspard |
last post by:
I'd like to know how to open a document in a default app. like for example
if I wanted to open a .txt document I'd like my program open notepad if it
is the default for a windows machine text...
|
by: Chris Blanco |
last post by:
I am building a Dynamic assembly loader which will scan and monitor a
directory, when a new assembly gets placed in that directory it will examine
the directory to see if there is a class that is...
|
by: Bill English |
last post by:
How do I associate file types with my application, and use its icon? Also is there an event I can use for when my application is loaded by opening those filetypes?
Ex. Open a .rtf, and I want my...
|
by: MAF |
last post by:
I am trying to use reflection to load an assembly and one of my assemblies
throws the following error:
One or more of the types in the assembly unable to load
Is there anyway to find out...
|
by: Fred |
last post by:
I am using VS2003 and I am using files with myExt to launch my application.
The file type was setup in the Setup Project under File Types. This all
works well but now I won't to use Notepad to edit...
|
by: Paul Sullivan |
last post by:
I have encountered the same problem another posted about several
months
ago. Unfortunately, there was no result posted on the old thread. I
will let the original message text stand and ask if...
|
by: mrclash |
last post by:
Hello,
I have a class that uses some variables to access a sql database, and I
want to make a derived class that inherits all the methods of this
class, because the derived one will do exactly...
|
by: jimmy |
last post by:
Hi again,
sorry for posting two questions so close together but im working on a
school project which is due in soon and running into some difficulties
implementing the database parts. I have the...
|
by: alan |
last post by:
Hello world, I'm wondering if it's possible to implement some sort of
class/object that can perform mapping from class types to strings?
I will know the class type at compile time, like so:...
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |