On Apr 27, 12:45pm in "Re: Defect in XBD un", Marc Stephenson wrote:
> Yes, but in consideration of that question, the direction for undefined
> interfaces (associated with future options) will be set.
>
We looked at this during the period when the 1d,1j,1q and other amendments
to .1-1990 were in progress, and I wrote a paper, PASC SEC N732 R3,
that addressed the matter. I've added this to the document register
as background information:
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/docs/sec_n732r3.pdf
This was premised on the fact that amendments were in progress
for .1-1990 and that this would allow those implementing
.1-1990 still to be in conformance after an amendment completed.
For .1-2001 amendments are not in scope, so you are really
looking at handling options introduced through a future revision
where _POSIX_VERSION will have changed.
regards
Andrew
-----
Andrew Josey The Open Group
Austin Group Chair Apex Plaza,Forbury Road,
Email: yyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England
Tel: +44 118 9508311 ext 2250 Fax: +44 118 9500110
|