Re: Order of look-up for included interfaces
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 01:54:14PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > > > 1) ISO-C99 (pay preview)
> > > > 2)SUSv3 www.opengroup.org/austin/
> > > > 3)SUSv2 http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xshix.html
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > IMHO it's not right for the LSB to reference any pay-per-view standard
> > > like ISO-C99. ESPECIALLY as the first standard in the list!
> > > Can we demote ISO-C99 to be further down in the list, or preferably,
> > > delete it entirely from the list?
> >
> > ISO-C99 is more recent than SUSv2 and SUSv3 is not released yet.
>
> You're saying that the most recent standard (being the most up to date)
> should be primary? That sounds logical.
> Does that mean than when SUSv3 is released, it'll be more recent than C99,
> and will be the primary reference?
The new POSIX standard will be aligned with C99, but it will defer to
C99 in case of discrepancies. So you should refer to C99 for the C functions.
Kind regards
Keld Simonsen
Reply to: