Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 01:59:08 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Juli Mallett <juli@clockworksquid.com>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.ORG>, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include _ctype.h Message-ID: <20071031225908.GA91412@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20071031224818.GA91246@nagual.pp.ru> References: <200710272232.l9RMWSbK072082@repoman.freebsd.org> <20071030200331.GA29309@toxic.magnesium.net> <20071031215526.GC89932@nagual.pp.ru> <20071031223349.GA552@FreeBSD.org> <20071031223727.GB90994@nagual.pp.ru> <20071031224313.GA18285@toxic.magnesium.net> <20071031224818.GA91246@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 01:48:19AM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> > > 2. It also breaks common style ctype using for is{w}ascii(). If revert
> > > this, is{w}ascii() should be rewritted too.
> >
> > That seems reasonable.
>
> Well, I don't want to fight here. If there general consensus that we
> should prefer human-readable code for __isctype(), isascii() and
> iswascii() in trade for some edge cases, let it be so.
From second thoght, is{w}ascii() are macros and rewritting them cause
things like (arg++) be evaluated twice, so it is better to not touch it.
So I don't see the point why __isctype() so special to not looks like
isascii()
--
http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071031225908.GA91412>