From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] AFS-client for Plan9 - ?
In-Reply-To: <E13vxdh-000JOA-0C@finch-post-12.mail.demon.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0011150314190.6681-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 03:20:03 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2bd6c2b4-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025



On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 nigel@9fs.org wrote:

> Let me explain (and, yes, this is a quote from Fawlty Towers)
> 
> Programs which do not explicitly close flies before invoking exit() are
> not
> 
> 1) badly written

Sure.

> or
> 
> 2) forcing Unix implementations to have to do close on exit to compensate

Sure.

> These are the defined semantics. So the reason is "because that's what
> the program quite reasonably expects".
... and so many programs _do_ expect it (quite reasonably) that changing
that behaviour would require the audit and rewrite of the whole userland.

Folks, how about finally agreeing that we agree and stopping that subthread?
It's getting really silly.