Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:05:13 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> Subject: Re: About extensible prinf(3), a slightly long X-mas card Message-ID: <20051217030513.A82342@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <23883.1134815699@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@phk.freebsd.dk on Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:34:59AM %2B0100 References: <20051217102835.GC33190@uk.tiscali.com> <23883.1134815699@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:34:59AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20051217102835.GC33190@uk.tiscali.com>, Brian Candler writes: > > >Perhaps the semantics of this extended printf() are so far divorced from the > >standard one that you might as well just call it something else? e.g. > > > > ext_printf() > > the reasons not to are > > ext_printf() > ext_fprintf() > ext_sprintf() > ext_snprintf() > ext_asprintf() > ext_vprintf() > ext_vfprintf() > ext_vsfprintf() > ext_vasfprintf() > > There is little or no point in replicating all of this stuff. phk, i don't understand your objection. aren't (or shouldn't) all of these written as wrappers for a generic ext_*printf() ? or your objection is not on the number of different interfaces to the same thing, but rather the fact that by calling it printf you can use the existing GLIBC glue to register extensions etc ? I love the idea of extensible printf, and it's way way useful when handling ip addresses, hexdump and whatnot; but portability is an issue, and nobody would use it if the source code doesn't port to other systems. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051217030513.A82342>