site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com On Nov 24, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Per Mildner wrote: Per, = Mike _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-kernel mailing list (Darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/site_archiver%40lists.a... In any case, read() is just an example, the same kind of implementation template seems to be used for many other supposedly cancellable functions in the kernel. Nothing in this thread gives me any reason to believe that they are not all violating the UNIX 2003 standard. Just an observation, based on some years of experience on the implementation side of things like this. You are likely to get a better response if you stop trying to play the heavy. You are in no position to, and will not get better results by wielding the UNIX03 spec as though it was a weapon. Darwin is "compliant" in the legal sense, and ranting about how you believe otherwise is not useful or relevant, and more importantly will not help your cause. If you want Apple to devote developer resources to fixing *your* problem, you need to demonstrate why the current behaviour of the system hurts you as a developer. And you need to do this in your bug report, not by grandstanding here in this thread. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com