Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:44:04 -0500 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen Makefile.inc Message-ID: <20000128164403.H31717@jade.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001281625270.41316-100000@green.dyndns.org>; from green@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:32:12PM -0500 References: <200001280714.XAA38397@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001281625270.41316-100000@green.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:32:12PM -0500, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > Am I the only one that's disturbed by the fact that this (nonstandard) > function pair has such generic names? Already, it has broken world > in two places. It's just not a good idea to have such generic functions > in our headers (even if it's more okay for them to be in the libaries...) > > How about (for instance) strflags() for getflags() and strtoflags() for > setflags()? The names right now are extremely ambigous, plus getflags() > returns a pointer to a STATIC BUFFER, a very bad and inherently messy, > thread-unsafe, etc. etc. thing. Plus, it's not even noted in the manpage. I thought I read somewhere that str*() functions were reserved, so wouldn't we be replacing non-standard function names with standard-breaking functions? Of course, I could just be remembering wrong, in which case 10 people will flame me. -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect Computer Horizons Corp - CVM e-mail: billf@chc-chimes.com / billf@FreeBSD.org Office: 800-252-2421 x128 / Cell: 248-761-7272 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?20000128164403.H31717>