Re: A modest proposal regarding pathnames (was: [PATCH v4] man/man7/pathname.7: Add file documenting format of pathnames

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 08:25:36PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> A good example of what you're talking about is exec(3):
> 
>      int execl(const char *pathname, const char *arg, ...
>                      /*, (char *) NULL */);
>      int execlp(const char *file, const char *arg, ...
>                      /*, (char *) NULL */);
>      int execle(const char *pathname, const char *arg, ...
>                      /*, (char *) NULL, char *const envp[] */);
>      int execv(const char *pathname, char *const argv[]);
>      int execvp(const char *file, char *const argv[]);
>      int execvpe(const char *file, char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
> 
> The p functions *require* a filename, while the non-p functions accept a
> pathname.  I would change that manual page for consistency into either
> pathname and filename, or path and file, but the current mix is bad.

I started The POSIXly Correct Reform.  :)
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/src/alx/linux/man-pages/man-pages.git/log/?h=posixly>

Cheers,
Alex


-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Documentation]     [Netdev]     [Linux Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux