> Klaus Klein (by way of Klaus Klein <kleink@mibh.de>) wrote:
> > I agree.  However, what's the rationale behind its declaration
> > having ended up in <stdlib.h>?  I won't contend that Solaris'
> > is prior art, but since <stdlib.h> rarely concerns itself with
> > file descriptor management, OpenBSD's in <unistd.h> seems a
> > more natural choice of placement to me, but it's also unnecessarily
> > diverging.
> > 
> 
> both unistd and stdlib have their history of portability issues, and 
> none seems better from a "rational" viewpoint. so the winner is the 
> first that had it... the argument stating that stdlib is std and should 
> be reserved to std c has history against it...
> 
> Now, whether it goes to unistd, stdlib, newstandard.h or 
> hasta_siempre_la_revolution.h is a secondary question. The header files 
> mechanism is one the (archaic?) C "features" that causes too many 
> problems and should deserve very little time.
> 
> so go add it. just put the declaration in any header file you feel good.

	i guess unistd.h is better as close() is also there.

itojun