> Nope.  What I meant was "is Borland C++ 3.1's implementation
 > of the POSIX functions compliant?".  Because if I can just
 > have a list of all POSIX functions (just their names), then I
 > don't need the POSIX specs, I can look them up in my manual!

Compliance or not is something I can't advise on.  Of course, if you want
to believe Borland's (or anyone's) manuals, that's up to you, but I've
always found them poor references if you need to check standards. For
example, how do you know about function calls or constructs/macros which a
particular implementation doesn't have? On the off-chance that a compiler
manual does raise the issue of 'compliance with standards', it's more
likely that you'll see the picture with rose coloured glasses here as well.

  cheers,
  david

--- MaltEd 1.0.b5