Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On May 24, 6:35 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> Yannick Duchêne writes on comp.lang.ada:
>
>
> > By the way, there is not event something like a standard OS (there may
> > be proprietaries or not, but none is standard).
>
> POSIX is a standard.  A POSIX-compliant OS is a standard OS.  An OS that
> refuses to comply with POSIX, or any other standard, is non-standard.
>
> Even MVS aka z/OS is standard in that sense.
>
> --
> Ludovic Brenta.

And, it is useful/instructive to realize that just because something
is a
[part of a] standard does NOT mean that standard requires/says
anything useful.

This was something I learned from a mathematics professor (though
about
'definitions' rather than 'standards') and is important enough that it
should be remembered from time-to-time.

{IIRC as far as POSIX is concerned, MS Windows has been POSIX
complaint
 since 2000... and this says NOTHING about how portable binaries (or
their
sources) are between Windows and unix/linux computers.}