From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <002d01c50553$8d6de0a0$0200000a@urjc1> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gorka_Guardiola_M=FAzquiz?= To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> References: Subject: Re: [9fans] mkstemp() Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:08:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 383c3e3a-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 What about two instances of the same program?. What I meant in my other mail is that a big random number would probably suffice, as the probability of collision is really low (as you say we already have user separation). Even more if it has an identifier per applications (ex. /tmp/acme.23423) which also makes the name readable. In any case, if the create fails, you can always generate the random number again. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald G. Minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [9fans] mkstemp() > > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 cej@gli.cas.cz wrote: > >> need mkstemp() [BSD unistd.h] > > why? Your tmp is not my tmp. I see no need for the actual function, just > make something with the same name that doesn't worry about 'unique' file > names. > > ron >