This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH v8 06/16] Provide backward compatibility for strftime family (bug 10871).
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:10:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v8 06/16] Provide backward compatibility for strftime family (bug 10871).
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fweimer at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com C340490904
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com C340490904
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 06/28/2017 12:04 PM, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> As %OB format specifier has been added to strftime/wcsftime
> family of functions backward compatibility implementation must be
> provided for older binaries which assume that %B returns
> a month name in the nominative case.
I think this is a misuse of a compatibility symbols.
Either the reinterpretation of %B is okay, and then it should apply to
old binaries as well, or it is not, and then we should not do it and use
%OB for the new variant (avoiding the backwards compatibility issue
I still think that the reinterpretation %B is quite wrong, needlessly
breaking backwards compatibility for most languages which benefit from
the change, but I won't stay in the way of consensus on this matter.
However, the compatibility symbol is wrong, and I'm sustaining my objection.