Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:7453 comp.unix.wizards:9150
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!pacbell!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!scs
From: scs@athena.mit.edu (Steve Summit)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: functional stdio
Message-ID: <5600@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 2 Jun 88 03:50:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: bloom-be.5600
References: <136@insyte.uucp> <11331@mimsy.UUCP> <13597@comp.vuw.ac.nz> <13621@comp.vuw.ac.nz> <11582@mimsy.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: scs@athena.mit.edu (Steve Summit)
Lines: 17

In article <11582@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>As for obtaining it: that is somewhat difficult.  funopen() is
>based upon the existing 4.3BSD stdio...
>With any luck some version of this will appear
>in 4.4BSD; in the meantime, the intrepid but impatient stdio hacker
>can add funopen() and its variants with just a little work.

I've been meaning to respond to this stdio discussion for a while:
I started writing a stdio replacement based on exactly this idea.
I'd assumed I'd post it when I was finished with it, but I
haven't worked on it in a while.  I do know that it runs well
enough for me to have linked RCS against it to get RCS to work on
my v7 pdp11, which didn't have fopen("w+").  I suppose it wouldn't
take much to convince me to cast it to the four winds "as is"...

                                            Steve Summit
                                            scs@adam.pika.mit.edu