| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the C POSIX library article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copywrite violation edit
For anyone debating - here is the copywrite information on their table of contents. Fresheneesz 21:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK. We can't use it, then. Do you want to rewrite the first paragraph? –EdC 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've reworded it in the temporary version. Does it look fine enough? Fresheneesz 05:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- The second and third paragraphs are copvio as well. I'll use the first para; feel free to add non-copyvio stuff. –EdC 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've reworded it in the temporary version. Does it look fine enough? Fresheneesz 05:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Temp version edit
I started a temporary version which adds info from another source, and changes some wording from the original source. Not all the wording is changed, however. . Fresheneesz 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Library vs. specification edit
- "The C POSIX library is a language-independent library [...]"
Is it correct to speak of a library? This makes the C POSIX library sound like an actual implementation rather than a specification or standard from which implementations can be derived. Cf. with POSIX Threads. --Abdull (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Incomplete list? edit
Can someone verify the completeness of the headers currently mentioned in the section C POSIX library header files? For example, is it correct that pthread.h is missing? --Abdull (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly is incomplete, and yes, pthread.h is missing. But before we re-complete it, there is a small question here. Does an encyclopedia has to contain such specific details of a technical document? Isn't it suppose to contain basic information about the topic? I don't think this page is worth living on Wikipedia, and it should be merged into the page POSIX. What's more, the specific links in the header simply redirect back to the page POSIX. Dannyniu (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
POSIX next steps edit
I added the missing headers, I think it would be easier to note the differences in the C Standard Library than to make new articles. Sadly the document?/Website is not very user-friendly (to make it sound nice). Why is it important to note the Issues? Order things from old to new would make more sense (with maybe short explanations). What do you think?