POSIX standard
Joan Miller
on March, 2010.
Does Go is following the POSIX standard?
di
--
To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
Joan Miller
On 15 abr, 13:01, di <uni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Firstly, that's a GUIDE to the most recent version of the Single UNIX
> Specification, which is free to 'Gold' and 'Platinum' member companies'
> employees. I can't say anything intelligent about this document, as I am
> not a member.
"PDF version free only to members, subject to The Open Group terms"
It's free to everyone that is registered, not only for Gold and
Platinum members.
di
Alexander Surma
> not a member.
member. POSIX is a weird, bloated unnecessary standard which is not
even desirable to follow.
However, it is a standard for Operating Systems. Linux and BSD are
more or less compliant and Go should run on any POSIXy OS as far as I
can tell from `os' and `runtime'.
Surma
Conrad Meyer
> On 15 abr, 13:01, di <uni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Firstly, that's a GUIDE to the most recent version of the Single UNIX
> > Specification, which is free to 'Gold' and 'Platinum' member companies'
> > employees. I can't say anything intelligent about this document, as I am
> > not a member.
>
> "PDF version free only to members, subject to The Open Group terms"
>
> It's free to everyone that is registered, not only for Gold and
> Platinum members.
The free availability of the pdf somehow fails to prevent it from being (yet
another) dumb question. Could you maybe only ask meaningful questions on the
mailing list?
Thanks,
--
Conrad Meyer <cem...@cs.washington.edu>
Alexander Surma
> mailing list?
I thank you
Joan Miller
On 15 abr, 13:01, di <uni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Firstly, that's a GUIDE to the most recent version of the Single UNIX
> Specification, which is free to 'Gold' and 'Platinum' member companies'
> employees. I can't say anything intelligent about this document, as I am
> not a member.
>
> Secondly, the Single UNIX Specification includes POSIX as a subset of it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Linuxsays that 'no
> linux distribution has been registered as SUS compliant'.
>
> Linux is listed under the 'mostly POSIX compliant' section inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Mostly_POSIX-compliant.
>
> Linux does have the Linux Standard Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base) which is 'based on the
> POSIX <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX> specification, the Single UNIX
> Specification <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification>, and
> several other open standards, but extends them in certain areas'. Some
> distros are compliant with this, and some are not. It looks a bit unloved,
> anyway.
>
> My point is, seeing as Go is only fully functional in Linux anyway, and
> Linux certainly isn't POSIX compliant (which POSIX standard, there's more
> than one..?), and even as the POSIX standards talk about providing certain C
> function calls to access the system, Go makes direct system calls instead
> anyway, whatever definition you take of 'Go following the POSIX standard'
> cannot possibly be true!*
>
> * Actually, here's an easier answer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Mostly_POSIX-compliant>
> mentions
> that the first POSIX specification includes 'Floating Point Exceptions'
> (among other operating system things like Command Interpreter, Shell
> Utilities, etc..). Go does not have floating point exceptions, ergo, it is
> not posix compliant ;)
>
Then since that Go isn't POSIX compliant, isn't there to follow the
System Interfaces when you have to create a function related to it, is
it?
Ian Lance Taylor
> Does Go is following the POSIX standard?
What does this question mean? POSIX is a standard which describes an
interface to an operating system. Go is not an operating system.
Ian
Joan Miller
On 15 abr, 14:18, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote:
But Go has functions where there are implemented any interfaces to the
operating system [1].
So, as I said, is there to follow the System Interfaces defined on the
POSIX standard? --since that Go isn't POSIX compliant--
Uriel
>> > Does Go is following the POSIX standard?
Joan, please stop wasting the time of the thousands of members of this
list (as I have repeatedly asked you to in private).
All your 'questions' are either meaningless or display a total lack of
effort to find an answer.
uriel
Joan Miller
Uriel, if you were followed reading then you could know why has been
made that question.
-------
But Go has functions where there are implemented any interfaces to the
operating system [1].
So, as I said, is there to follow the System Interfaces defined on the
POSIX standard? --since that Go isn't POSIX compliant--
[1] http://golang.org/pkg/syscall/
-------
The reason is very simple. If you create a function related to the
system operating, is there to follow that POSIX standard? which says
about its name and what's its function.
Since that Go isn't POSIX compliant, *as has been said here*, then it
has not sense to follow that standard.
chris dollin
The reason is very simple. If you create a function related to the
system operating, is there to follow that POSIX standard? which says
about its name and what's its function.
Since that Go isn't POSIX compliant, *as has been said here*, then it
has not sense to follow that standard.
What /specific/, /actual/ problem with system calls do you have
that means that the theoretical non-compliance of the underlying
operating system you're running on for /that call/ is an issue?
Chris
--
Chris "allusive" Dollin
Joan Miller
On 15 abr, 15:36, chris dollin <ehog.he...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 15 April 2010 15:59, Joan Miller <pelok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The reason is very simple. If you create a function related to the
> > system operating, is there to follow that POSIX standard? which says
> > about its name and what's its function.
>
> > Since that Go isn't POSIX compliant, *as has been said here*, then it
> > has not sense to follow that standard.
>
> What /specific/, /actual/ problem with system calls do you have
> that means that the theoretical non-compliance of the underlying
> operating system you're running on for /that call/ is an issue?
* Does Go is following the POSIX standard?
It has been said that *Go is not POSIX compliant*.
-> So, *if Go isn't POSIX compliant*, then there is not to follow that
standard at creating functions related at the operating system.
-> So, it could be used another name and another arguments names to a
function related to e.g. `getpwuid` [1] (which searchs user database
for a user ID).
[1] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/getpwuid.html
chris dollin
On 15 abr, 15:36, chris dollin <ehog.he...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 15 April 2010 15:59, Joan Miller <pelok...@gmail.com> wrote:It's anything very simple.
> > The reason is very simple. If you create a function related to the
> > system operating, is there to follow that POSIX standard? which says
> > about its name and what's its function.
>
> > Since that Go isn't POSIX compliant, *as has been said here*, then it
> > has not sense to follow that standard.
>
> What /specific/, /actual/ problem with system calls do you have
> that means that the theoretical non-compliance of the underlying
> operating system you're running on for /that call/ is an issue?
No. Which /actual/ problem do you have /now/?
--
Chris "allusive" Dollin
Joan Miller
On 15 abr, 16:41, chris dollin <ehog.he...@googlemail.com> wrote:
It isn't a problem else a question very simple.
Is it really POSIX compliant or isn't? Or when is POSIX compliant and
when it isn't?
chris dollin
Why do you care, if you don't have an actual problem to solve?
Chris
--
Chris "allusive" Dollin
Rob 'Commander' Pike
) despite our best efforts.
-rob
Joseph Stewart
I'm afraid Go is also not yet compliant with ASTM D2851-98(2009) (http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2851.htm) despite our best efforts.
-rob
Joseph Poirier
I'm afraid Go is also not yet compliant with ASTM D2851-98(2009) (http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2851.htm) despite our best efforts.
Joan Miller
On 15 abr, 17:17, "Rob 'Commander' Pike" <r...@google.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid Go is also not yet compliant with ASTM D2851-98(2009) (http://www.astm.org/Standards/D2851.htm
> ) despite our best efforts.
>
its alternatives.
I'm agraid that it cann't be answered anything as simple even for one
of Go lead developers.
So I'm supposed that you're using POSIX only when you want.
Alexander Surma
Joan Miller
On 15 abr, 21:24, Alexander Surma <alexander.su...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> I'm afraid you don't realize how goddamn stupid this question is...
I expected something smart to continue to defend your position about
don't say:
* If Go is really POSIX compliant
* If Go follows that standard at creating functions related at the
operating system.
Russ Cox
> I expected something smart to continue to defend your position about
> don't say:
>
> * If Go is really POSIX compliant
> * If Go follows that standard at creating functions related at the
> operating system.
(1), as Ian said:
>> Does Go is following the POSIX standard?
>
> interface to an operating system. Go is not an operating system.
POSIX describes a C interface to an operating system.
Go is not C either.
(3)
Basically no operating system C interface implements
POSIX either. They implement convenient subsets.
Your question is meaningless, so you've gotten
meaningless answers. You might as well ask
whether the night sky in the southern hemisphere
is USB 2.0-compliant.
Russ
--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/subscribe?hl=en
Kevin Ballard
> Your question is meaningless, so you've gotten
> meaningless answers. You might as well ask
> whether the night sky in the southern hemisphere
> is USB 2.0-compliant.
I supposed to power my telescope? The public needs to know!
-Kevin Ballard
--
Kevin Ballard
http://kevin.sb.org
kbal...@gmail.com
Joseph Poirier
Joan Miller
On 15 abr, 22:23, Russ Cox <r...@golang.org> wrote:
> Your question is meaningless, so you've gotten
> meaningless answers. You might as well ask
> whether the night sky in the southern hemisphere
> is USB 2.0-compliant.
Without doubt your attitude shows the success of a system as
stackoverflow over the mailing lists, where until ruby developers
become friendly.
di
Joseph Stewart
Nec scire fast est omnia (No one knows everything)
On 15 abr, 22:23, Russ Cox <r...@golang.org> wrote:
> Your question is meaningless, so you've gotten
> meaningless answers. You might as well ask
> whether the night sky in the southern hemisphere
> is USB 2.0-compliant.
Without doubt your attitude shows the success of a system as
stackoverflow over the mailing lists, where until ruby developers
become friendly.
Joan Miller
On 17 abr, 19:23, di <uni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Russ is not being cruel, it is very difficult to understand what you mean in
> this case!! POSIX talks about operating systems, you are asking if Go is
> compliant with the POSIX standard. I guessed what you actually meant was
> 'is Go compatible with POSIX-compliant operating systems', but you haven't
> clarified this!
>
> Seriously, no-one is trying to pick on you here - the question you have
> asked is difficult to interpret, never mind answer. When I said in the
> first reply message that because go does not have floating point exceptions
> it cannot be POSIX compliant, I was making an inane and irrelevant comment,
> half-jokingly -- the standard does not make sense to apply to programming
> languages anyway. If you went on stackoverflow and asked if Ruby was POSIX
> compliant, you would similarly confuse the user base there.
me). It takes much more than that to bother me since that I've an
answer for everything and since I can be very sarcastic.
But it was also time to put a full stop.
I agree with everything else.