[lsb-discuss] New Interfaces for 3.2/4.0

Andrew Josey ajosey at rdg.opengroup.org
Wed Aug 2 02:37:45 PDT 2006

On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 09:57 +0200, Jiri Dluhos wrote:
> Do you think that this would mean we also get rid of that phrases
> like 
> "results of this operation are undefined" which are interpreted by
> glibc 
> developers as "any horrible thing can happen, preferably randomly,
> after some 
> time, and without any warning"? That would be an excellent
> achievement ;-) 

Do you have proposed text where specific details could be defined.
Undefined areas are those which applications should avoid, since there
is no definition of what the behavior is. This often meant that no
agreement could be made on what the behaviour should be. Its possible
that there is agreement on LSB systems and such behavior could always be
defined as an LSB extension over the base standard.


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list