Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!oliveb!sun!gorodish!guy From: guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: xbbs features as request Message-ID: <55015@sun.uucp> Date: 1 Jun 88 05:54:33 GMT References: <203@turnkey.TCC.COM> <3837@uwspan.UUCP> <7841@ncoast.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.uucp Lines: 17 > Can you say "portable"? BSD has portable directory routines. System V does, > too: but calls them by a different name. EARLY System V and previous AT&T > releases (and Xenix 2/3, etc.) don't have them at all. Yes, but they can be provided; the source to the 4.1BSD version was posted to the net about 100 years ago by Kirk McKusick, and other versions are in the "comp.sources.unix" archives. > I hate to say this, AT&T: but "struct direNt" was a DUMB idea. > Incompatibility still reigns supreme. AAAAARGH!!!!! 1) I don't think this was AT&T's idea, I think it was POSIX's. 2) It's not such a dumb idea if you have to includeon a V7-filesystem version of UNIX (which defines "struct direct" as the 16-byte format directory entry) in your program. The only reason it was done was to avoid namespace collisions.