This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [libc-alpha] Re: Wish for 2002 ...
- From: Shawn Starr <spstarr at sh0n dot net>
- To: Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:06:03 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [libc-alpha] Re: Wish for 2002 ...
> If there was a significant demand for these functions by common
> programmers, don't you think that it would have manifested itself in at
> least a few questions on Usenet?
True, but im not arguing about including strl* functions :-)
I'm just arguing that if for example all the "other" *BSDs, unixes or
whatever have you decide to include say strblowup() and the GNU C library
doesn't. Won't that make us look like fools for not supporting
it. EVEN THOUGH it hasn't (yet) been adopted by the POSIX standards body?
> Okay, let's widen the search to any newsgroups that contain .linux.
> or .gnu. as a component in their name. Alas, at last, here is someone
> asking in comp.os.linux.misc. But when we look at the article, it comes
> to light that it's some severely confused individual who apparently
> thinks that C library functions are shell commands. See Message ID
hehe thats just funny ;-)
> Again, no actual discussion of the functions to be found, just mentions
> of these identifiers in make outputs, snippets of code and the like.
> So where is this mythical mass of programmers who are clamoring for
> strlcpy and strlcat on GNU Linux?
Again, not debating strl*