This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [patch] errno.texi: Clarify some GNU extensions
- From: Ben Collins <bcollins at debian dot org>
- To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:21:51 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] errno.texi: Clarify some GNU extensions
- References: <20011024115713.F10952@visi.net> <m38zcqwi0r.fsf@myware.mynet>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 04:13:56PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:
>
> > 2001-10-24 Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
> >
> > * manual/errno.texi: Clarify that program_invocation_name and
> > program_invocation_short_name require _GNU_SOURCE. Also fix
> > example usage to reflect this.
>
> This isn't necessary. Throughout the manual we say "this is a GNU
> extension" and this always means you'll have to define _GNU_SOURCE to
> use (if this is about an additional interface).
Then why not follow the rest of the documentation and label the spec
(like is done for BSD, SYSV, POSIX, etc.)? Does it really hurt to be
more clear, especially in the section that actually documents this
interface? And shouldn't examples be particularly clear?
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'