xbbs features as request

[Mike "Ford" Ditto]

In article <7841 at ncoast.UUCP> allbery at ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
> Can you say "portable"?  BSD has portable directory routines.

An utterly ridiculous statement.

> I hate to say this, AT&T:  but "struct direNt" was a DUMB idea.
> Incompatibility still reigns supreme.  AAAAARGH!!!!!

What would you suggest, that they return (struct direct)s so that BSD
code will compile but not work?  Do like BSD does and prohibit
programs from using (struct dirent) and (struct dirent) in the same
source file by giving them the same name?

What they did instead was make a system that, unlike BSD's
directory(3C) library, is *portable*.

	1) it separates "portable" directory reading from BSD-style
		implementation-dependent direct filesystem access.

	2) it works on various filesystem types, even on the same
		system.

	3) it can be used on SysV or BSD, unlike BSD's equivalent.

	4) it can be made compatible with typical BSD code that
		believes it is reading (struct direct)s from the
		directory by simply doing #define direct dirent.

	5) it takes a few keystrokes to convert a BSD program to
		use the better (struct dirent) interface.  A few
		more keystrokes will make it also compatible with
		the old BSD directory routines.

The original BSD routines were never meant to be "portable", otherwise
they wouldn't have returned pointers to internal filesystem data types
and required user programs to know the format of these data.

But you know you'd get flamed for a statement like that, didn't you?
:-)	:-)	:-)	:-)	:-)	:-)	:-)	:-)	:-)

					-=] Ford [=-

"Once there were parking lots,		(In Real Life:  Mike Ditto)
now it's a peaceful oasis.		ford%kenobi at crash.CTS.COM
This was a Pizza Hut,			...!sdcsvax!crash!kenobi!ford
now it's all covered with daisies." -- Talking Heads