Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!emjej From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: perror(3) considered harmful - (nf) Message-ID: <6096@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Mar-84 22:57:05 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.6096 Posted: Thu Mar 8 22:57:05 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Mar-84 10:21:37 EST Lines: 21 #R:cwruecmp:-106100:uokvax:6100023:000:875 uokvax!emjej Mar 7 13:17:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.unix / cwruecmp!decot / 5:51 am Mar 5, 1984 */ I, Dave Decot, *agree* with most everything you say. The kernel HAS, however, gotten into the business of setting a variable indicating a vague "error status code" that is intended to be used by calls to perror(). I don't think this is wise, unless the codes can be made more descriptive and unambiguous. By the way, the kernel already has to look for the "magic number" at the beginning of executables that distinguishes binary programs from shell files, anyway. That's probably why they extended the idea to "well, ok, csh is just another variety of "program" executors, so exec(2) should make that differentiation, too." Dave Decot "Yet another victim of YASEM." decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay) /* ---------- */ Agreed--this is why OS-9 modules are so nice... James Jones