From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <fb2ba8d67817c068bd39c14e3919bf50@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 07:11:05 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <20150529211248.Horde.KX_OffdaJ1iY0Du6zyO7vRu@ssl.eumx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Ports tree for Plan 9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5663ed58-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Which version?
>
> "The id_t and pid_t types shall be defined as described in
> <sys/types.h>." in issue 6
>
> "The <sys/wait.h> header shall define the id_t and pid_t types as
> described in <sys/types.h>." in issue 7
>
> in the sys/wait.h part of the headers section of base definitions

I haven't looked at cinap's work, but...

It is the Plan 9 Way (TM) to avoid nested inclusion of header files,
although I guess the APE may be exempted.  I also appreciate that
adding conditional definitions of id_t and pid_t in <sys/wait.h> that
match those in <sys/types.h> could lead to eventual inconsistencies,
but I would still prefer to follow the Plan 9 guidelines.

But without a more formal code review structure and the apparent
absence of guidance from Bell Labs, I suppose I'm just farting in the
wind.

Lucio.