Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:26:26AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
>
> Please move this naming discussion to the appropriate posix standards
> forum. 

I believe our official position on XPG3 and successors (from whence
these functions come, I think) is that we consider parts of them
sufficiently unreasonable that we won't try to comply.

Whether these names are _so_ bad that they alone are sufficient reason
to not include these functions (or not under their standardized names)
is a legitimate topic for discussion here, I think.

I don't happen to think they are.  On the other hand, if some standard
we'd implemented other parts of were to specify monkeysputumbucket(), I
have to say there's clearly a point where we shouldn't just blindly go
along.

-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon                                        
tls%rek.tjls.com@localhost
    "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX
     prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong
     segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper