perror(3) considered harmful - (nf)

[emjej at uokvax.UUCP]

#R:cwruecmp:-106100:uokvax:6100023:000:875
uokvax!emjej    Mar  7 13:17:00 1984

/***** uokvax:net.unix / cwruecmp!decot /  5:51 am  Mar  5, 1984 */
I, Dave Decot, *agree* with most everything you say.  The kernel HAS, however,
gotten into the business of setting a variable indicating a vague "error
status code" that is intended to be used by calls to perror().  I don't
think this is wise, unless the codes can be made more descriptive and
unambiguous.  By the way, the kernel already has to look for the "magic number"
at the beginning of executables that distinguishes binary programs from
shell files, anyway.  That's probably why they extended the idea to "well,
ok, csh is just another variety of "program" executors, so exec(2) should
make that differentiation, too."

Dave Decot		 "Yet another victim of YASEM."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot    (Decot.Case at rand-relay)
/* ---------- */

Agreed--this is why OS-9 modules are so nice...

						James Jones