From: nobu.nokada@...
Date: 2002-04-17T21:59:00+09:00
Subject: Re: Help wanted for statvfs extension

Hi,

At Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:33:04 +0900,
James F.Hranicky <jfh@cise.ufl.edu> wrote:
> > > Statvfs is more-or-less SYSV-specific; under the BSDs it'll be 
> > > statfs.
> > 
> > statvfs() and fstatvfs() are specified in The Single UNIX
> > Specification.  I'm afraid statfs() and fstatfs() are less
> > portable, maybe.
> 
> Sure. My point is simply not to name the Ruby module after the
> system call as is differs from system to system. Even though 
> statvfs is in the Unix spec, the call doesn't (currently) exist
> on the BSDs. I think "Fs" or something like that is more generic
> and intuitive.

Almost agree, but isn't "Fs" too short?  Is it obvious enough?

> Also, you may want to add non-unix support eventually as well.

*I* don't want. :)

-- 
Nobu Nakada