Re: realpath(3)

[email protected] writes:

> This example, IMO, shows that using the same variable to hold
> whether the canonical result to be used, or an error, that shall
> NOT be used, relying on programmers to test correctly the return
> status of a routine, is dangerous.

So basically you do not like C and the Unix tradition.  I don't see how
this is really different from the usual situation that it's easy to
write bad code.

> xplpath(3) ("explicate path", or whatever name seems fitting for an
> english native speaker---which I'm obviously not)

"explain" probably, not that I endorse it.