proposed revision to memory.h(3head) (was: on the irresponsibility of pursuing C language reform)

[G. Branden Robinson]

Hi Alex,

At 2026-08-02T01:24:28+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Date: 2026-08-02 00:44:46+0200
> > From: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> >
> [...]
> > > Advocating for better usage in the documentation is a different
> > > thing, and a good thing. The man pages can even go pretty hard,
> > > that’s their job: “Notice the include file is string.h. That’s an
> > > historic accident maintained for compatibility reasons; don’t let
> > > that fool you, this function doesn’t operate on strings.”
> > 
> [...]
> > I should probably expand the NOTES a little bit, to be more clear
> > about why we ignore the standard in the SYNOPSIS.
> 
> I've put that text in a centralized place, in the memory.h(3head)
> manual page:
> 
> 	$ MANWIDTH=64 diffman-git HEAD
> 	--- HEAD^:man/man3head/memory.h.3
> 	+++ HEAD:man/man3head/memory.h.3
> 	@@ -10,6 +10,11 @@ SYNOPSIS
> 	      #include <memory.h>
> 	 
> 	 DESCRIPTION
> 	+     These functions are also provided in <string.h>, as speci‐
> 	+     fied by ISO C.  This is a historic accident maintained for
> 	+     compatibility reasons.  Don’t let that fool you; these
> 	+     functions don’t necessarily operate on strings.
> 	+

That's a heavy editorial slant.  I don't think it was a historical
accident; it was a historical "on purpose"[1], with which you disagree.
Here's a revision that goes a little less hard, favors active voice over
passive, and is shorter.

	+     ISO C mandates that <string.h> declare these functions.
	+     Be aware that they do not necessarily operate on strings.

> 	+STANDARDS
> 	+     BSD.

If you're tracking SVID in the Linux man-pages project, I would guess
that it was in the original SVID, which formalized/specified SVr2--but I
can't find online any version of SVID older than its Fourth Edition.

If you care about SVID, this point may bear further research.  Matt G.
of TUHS might have a line on older editions of SVID.

> 	+HISTORY
> 	+     The <memory.h> header file is the original one which was
> 	+     added in System V (1983), and was later adopted by 4.3BSD
> 	+     (1986).  It contained the original mem* functions.
> 	+
> 	+     C89 didn’t standardize this header file, and instead
> 	+     crammed all these functions in <string.h>, resulting in
> 	+     confusing programmers about the real purpose of these
> 	+     functions.

Again, you're going harder than you need to here.

I propose:

	+HISTORY
	+     System V (1983) introduced an initial set of mem*
	+     functions in a <memory.h> file.  4.3BSD (1986) adopted
	+     them.  C89 specified them in <string.h>.
	+
	+     The programmer bears the burden of selecting appropriate
	+     functions for operations on memory buffers (which may
	+     contain any bytes, including nulls) versus strings (which
	+     null bytes terminate).

If you like the foregoing, consider it:

Signed-off-by: G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>

Regards,
Branden

[1] As one does with "all the glue", when one doesn't want a "major
    award" to be readily repaired...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20260801/a4074690/attachment-0001.sig>