On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote: >>>> My philosophy is slightly different. I prefer to go with whatever it is >>>> that makes life easier for programming to multiple platforms. >>> >>> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11312 >> >> Unfortunately, Uli rejected it today.
> If there must be a module, I agree: POSIX-only popen users > should not be impacted. > >> or is this a case where sharutils should just >> get used to writing popen(,O_BINARY?"rb":"r")? > > However, this is so simple, I'd say it's not worth a module. And also the write flavors of popen: popen(xx,O_BINARY?"wb":"w") Anyhow, messing with multiple flavors of modules completely defeats the primary purpose of having popen silently ignore a 'b' in the mode. The primary purpose would be to reduce the amount of stuff one has to remember to get the job done. Rembering to code alternating strings or remembering a special flavor of popen gnulib module amount to pretty much the same thing. More stuff to do correctly. I have to say, though, the "I know what you want, but I won't do it because you didn't ask for "r" mode the way I want you to" error messages are the bain of one's programming existence. I think it the wrong choice. :( Bottom line: I agree it isn't worth a separate module. It should either be rolled into the one true popen module, reargued, or forgotten about.
