Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utah-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!utah-cs!lepreau From: lepreau@utah-cs.UUCP (Jay Lepreau) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: 4.2bsd eof flag in stdio Message-ID: <3130@utah-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 2-Dec-84 00:54:57 EST Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3130 Posted: Sun Dec 2 00:54:57 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 07:38:59 EST References: <127@ISM780B.UUCP> Organization: Univ of Utah CS Dept Lines: 27 Jim@ISM780B states in two separate articles: > show me the manual page for fread that says that 0 is returned upon EOF! > ... > When discussing fine points of documentation, it is more accurate and less > embarrassing to use your eyeballs, not your memory.... > you should not be so arrogant as to assume that you are not subject to > such misconceptions without verifying it. > ... > NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT FREAD RETURNS ZERO UPON END-OF-FILE. Taking Jim's own humble advice on the use of eyeballs and arrogance I found in the v7 manual under fread(3): DIAGNOSTICS Fread and fwrite return 0 upon end of file or error. And so does the 4.2 manual, which is derived from 32v which is derived from v7. Now, in Sys V (and Sys 3?), rather than change the code to fix a bug they changed the documentation and removed that sentence. Sun and UCB chose to fix the code. Fine. Arguments can be made both ways. (Of course I have strong opinions as to which is preferable.) However, the so-called issue of whether or not ^D other than at the beginning of a line should mean EOF is a straw man, and is not at issue (or shouldn't be, anyway). In any case it is orthogonal to the issue of sticky-eof on ttys, and is just muddying the waters. It's about as germane and likely to change as adding ^^ or BCD to C. Jay Lepreau