Stefan Edwards scripsit:
I don't see how: the issue seems about as implementation-dependent
> I guess what I'm driving at is for the standard to explain how to treat
> items that fail the above instance of
> translation into appropriate values, in some standard way.
as anything could be. What approach should the standard provide
for converting Plan 9 error strings into the far more common Windows/Posix
numbers from 1 to 255? (I assume that APE has a reverse convention,
but I can't find any documentation of it online.)
"For any value that does not map to an operating system acceptable exit value, and is not a boolean,
it is the recommendation of this report to treat it as a true conditional, for purposes of creating an exit value."
Which seems pretty hairy to me. As I said, it was only a thought, rather than a deeply held belief, but it seems
reasonable to have a standards-compliant method for dealing with objects that cannot be mapped.
"Repeat this until 'update-mounts -v' shows no updates. John Cowan
You may well have to log in to particular machines, hunt down cowan@x
people who still have processes running, and kill them."