[ILUG] (un)link

[Waider]

Philip Reynolds wrote:
> 
> I don't understand why you think complying to POSIX standards some
> of the time, when it suits, is a good idea. Fair enough if you think
> POSIX compliance is an unworthy goal of UNIX and it's variants
> nowadays, but some of us differ.

I think it is an unworthy goal if POSIX compliance means the inclusion 
of a pair of binaries that replicate existing functionality for (again, 
hearsay) the gratification of a possibly long-dead Unix version. I have 
not come across these executables on any of the systems I've worked 
with, and would expect people writing portable shell scripts to use the 
"ln" and "rm" commands to do what "link" and "unlink" are purporting to 
do. Prior to Padraig's mail, I didn't even know "link" and "unlink" were 
/supposed/ to exist, whereas I learned about "ln" and "rm" in my first 
two days with a Unix system.

While I think that following standards is generally a good thing (I'm an 
engineer, after all, and appreciate the value of knowing your 
environment conforms to some known level), slavishly following 
badly-written ones in areas like this isn't doing anyone any good except 
perhaps providing gratification to someone that they can truthfully tick 
the box marked "POSIX" on their feature sheet. I really think this sort 
of thing should be left on the release notes as an area of non-compliance.

FWIW, some other random part of my hearsay is that parts of POSIX 
concerning the shell are actually impossible to comply with because 
they're mutually exclusive. I don't find this surprising, because I know 
that the ICCCM spec (part of X) /does/ have this problem.

In summary, standards-following is good, but blindly following a 
badly-written standard is bad, especially if it gains you nothing more 
than a check-box.

Cheers,
Waider.
-- 
waider at waider.ie / Yes, it /is/ very personal of me