[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] extensions on tmp filenames?
From: |
Lyndon Nerenberg |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] extensions on tmp filenames? |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Feb 2014 14:13:42 -0800 |
On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Mike O'Dell <address@hidden> wrote:
> ISO C can demand anything it wants about atomicity,
> but given that It Doesn't Rule The World, portability
> may make other demands. C is still useful even when
> the underlying runtime doesn't belong to that church.
I can't stop a system from not adhering to the standard. But I can say 'not
our fault' if that behaviour breaks MH somehow.
Although one might argue that, when it comes to C, the ISO C standards do rule
the world. Given C's application as the language to bootstrap nearly all the
other higher-level languages and runtimes, breaking your C compiler or library
is going to have potentially dire consequences.
--lyndon
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
- [Nmh-workers] extensions on tmp filenames?, David Levine, 2014/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] extensions on tmp filenames?, David Levine, 2014/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] extensions on tmp filenames?, David Levine, 2014/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] extensions on tmp filenames?, David Levine, 2014/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] extensions on tmp filenames?, David Levine, 2014/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] extensions on tmp filenames?, David Levine, 2014/02/03