From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada) Date: 1996/04/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 147423878 references: <4knqun$ga1@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <4kpceq$e4b@solutions.solon.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Peter said: "delete() is not ANSI. remove() is ANSI. I have never seen a system that didn't offer it, since the 3b1. It's certainly trivial to write. (A good patch for portability is to write standard code, and have a set of conditionally built modules to provide the standard functions in terms of the not-standard but available on all old systems functions.)" Oops, that's right, it is indeed remove I meant (I don't know it because I don't use it -- I don't use it because the Microsoft book says it is not implemented in some systems). On the other hand, that same book says that unlink is implemented in all systems, so clearly at least for the moment unlink is safer to use if you are aiming at maximum portability. Rememerb that gcc is targeted to more than 300 different C library environments, and you want to absolutely minimize conditional stuff. That's what I meant by having a strenuous view of portability. I would rather guess that Peter is pretty Unix oriented, and of course we are trying for a wider scope of portability than Unix!