Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:03:29 -0800
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To:        Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc:        Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen Makefile.inc
Message-ID:  <20000128190329.M7157@fw.wintelcom.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001291324040.8169-100000@alphplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 01:31:57PM %2B1100
References:  <200001282242.RAA26199@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001291324040.8169-100000@alphplex.bde.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> [000128 18:57] wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> 
> > <<On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:44:04 -0500, Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> said:
> > 
> > > I thought I read somewhere that str*() functions were reserved, so wouldn't
> > > we be replacing non-standard function names with standard-breaking functions?
> > 
> > No.  We would be replacing namespace-polluting names for non-standard
> > functions with non-namespace-polluting names for non-standard
> > functions.
> > 
> > I agree that `strflags' in an unfortunate choice of name --
> > particularly for a function which is prototyped in a commonly-included
> > header file.
> 
> Do you mean the current name, `setflags'?  `strflags' isn't too bad except
> it misdescribes what the function actually does.
> 
> I now think the changes should be backed out.  As well as namespace
> pollution, the interfaces are not good enough for a library (there
> should be no new interfaces that return results in a static buffer),
> they create library versioning problems too close to a release.

Although ugly, I'd like to see FreeBSD specific functions prefixed
with something to help avoid this, I brought this up about 2 years
ago regarding sendfile() and the devstat functions, FreeBSD is
known for not polluting our APIs with application specific functions,
i don't think a fbsd_ prefix would be too much to ask for.

Before anyone tosses a fireball in my direction, please think more on
the lines of doing the right thing rather than pretty-ness.

Or maybe it's time for a second libutil for these specific functions.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000128190329.M7157>