> A non-seekable read/write stream doesn't really make sense (think about
it).

How does it help the issue to ask the reporter to "think" when the have already provided an easily reproducable use case?

> What purpose does that constraint serve? Is there any reason it shouldn't be relaxed?

Can we *please* get an answer to this question? 

> Antoine already answered that question: it does not make sense to have a single stream that is open for *update* if it is not seekable.

How does this statement, already refuted by the reporter, bring us any closer to the answer to the question above?

Was this an arbitrary decision of someone who didn't think about character devices? Or is there any particular reason to prevent the use of "r+", "w+", "rb+" and "wb+" with readable-writable character devices?