> Rust shouldn't have changed the default behavior Agreed, didn't mean to imply otherwise. > ... Agreed > Perhaps their problem was having a habit of Googli

> Rust shouldn't have changed the default behavior Agreed, didn't mean to imply otherwise. > ... Agreed > Perhaps their problem was having a habit of Googling the usage for a core Unix API rather than using the freely available and eminently readable specs, which can be kept locally. To the degree that it is their problem, it's an understandable one. Not everyone has $1k to drop on text documents, and those standards may not cover the bulk - or even a particularly significant fraction - of the APIs one is dealing with on a day to day basis, making their value as an investment rather limited. And two decades ago, I was gobsmacked to learn that C++ had a standard library at all, with it's own string type - std::string - that I could use where Borland's AnsiString was unavailable. Things have admittedly improved slightly since then, but you can't buy a spec without knowing it even exists! And I'll admit I frequently google instead of refering to the standards I have bought. They're useful for resolving language lawyer disputes (although the occasional defect report limits even the standard's usefulness for that), but I won't call them particularly amazing references. Their main advantage is in being authoratative. Of course, implementations may not always perfectly match the standard they're supposed to match as well... when I care about the details, I'm more likely to dive into the implementation's source code rather than the spec.