From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Jul  1 14:43:28 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA16912
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA16905;
          Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA06556; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:41:15 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199607012141.OAA06556@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: Problem Report docs/731
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:41:15 -0700 (MST)
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.org, terry@lambert.org, witr@rwwa.COM,
        davidg@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199606291326.PAA28437@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jun 29, 96 03:26:12 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > 2a) Investigate possible breakage of socketpair() in foreign libraries
> >     (BSDI, Linux, etc).  Any library that uses the previously suggested
> >     fix of handling socketpair() like pipe() will break.
> 
> I think the latter is the way to go.  Can anybody ask the fathers of
> BSD why they didn't do it this way?

They did, in their documentation (man socketpair).  The documented
behaviour is the same as that for Solaris, SunOS, Linux, and other
OS's.

If ther system does not match the documentation, the system is wrong.

The documentation can be wrong independently, but the correctness
of the system is measured by its conformance to documented behaviour.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.