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