By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,190 Members | 811 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,190 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

types of 'Open' command

P: n/a
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

Jun 15 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
35 Replies


P: n/a
Ico
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
Jun 15 '06 #2

P: n/a
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.
Jun 15 '06 #3

P: n/a
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!
Jun 15 '06 #4

P: n/a
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
Jun 15 '06 #5

P: n/a
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.

Jun 15 '06 #6

P: n/a
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...)
Jun 15 '06 #7

P: n/a
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
Jun 15 '06 #8

P: n/a
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...)
Jun 15 '06 #9

P: n/a
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!
Jun 15 '06 #10

P: n/a
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.
Jun 15 '06 #11

P: n/a
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
Jun 15 '06 #12

P: n/a
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

Jun 15 '06 #13

P: n/a
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...)
Jun 16 '06 #14

P: n/a
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)
Jun 16 '06 #15

P: n/a
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.
Jun 16 '06 #16

P: n/a
Andrew Poelstra wrote:

I've always wondered why people work for Microsoft.


They pay well :)

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 16 '06 #17

P: n/a
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
Jun 16 '06 #18

P: n/a
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 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Jun 16 '06 #19

P: n/a
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
Jun 16 '06 #20

P: n/a
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.
Jun 16 '06 #21

P: n/a
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)
Jun 16 '06 #22

P: n/a
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.
Jun 16 '06 #23

P: n/a
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
Jun 16 '06 #24

P: n/a
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.
Jun 16 '06 #25

P: n/a
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.
Jun 16 '06 #26

P: n/a
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)
Jun 16 '06 #27

P: n/a
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...)
Jun 16 '06 #28

P: n/a
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.
Jun 17 '06 #29

P: n/a
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...)
Jun 17 '06 #30

P: n/a
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.
Jun 17 '06 #31

P: n/a
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.
Jun 17 '06 #32

P: n/a
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.
Jun 17 '06 #33

P: n/a
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.
Jun 17 '06 #34

P: n/a
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
Jun 19 '06 #35

P: n/a
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?

Jun 25 '06 #36

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.