From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Nov 1 16:36:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B42D14DC4 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:36:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA10246 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:36:40 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id BAA76839 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:36:40 +0100 (MET) Received: from arc.hq.cti.ru (arc.hq.cti.ru [195.34.40.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484AA15357 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:33:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dima@tejblum.pp.ru) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by arc.hq.cti.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id DAA38703; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:33:41 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from dima@tejblum.pp.ru) Received: from tejblum.pp.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tejblum.pp.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03010; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:40:22 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from dima@tejblum.pp.ru) Message-Id: <199911020040.DAA03010@tejblum.pp.ru> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96 To: Warner Losh Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org From: Dmitrij Tejblum Subject: Re: stpcpy() In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:05:45 MST." <199911010605.XAA04972@harmony.village.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 03:40:22 +0300 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Warner Losh wrote: > For example, the following program is strictly standards conforming, > but would break if we added this change: [example snipped]. s/stpcpy/index/g, and you will get a strictly standard conforming program that already broken on FreeBSD. A random programmer will much more likely name his function `index' than `stpcpy'. Anyhow, if a program is actually standard conforming, it should be compiled with -D_ANSI_SOURCE or -D_POSIX_SOURCE (depending on the standard it conform to), and still work fine. That is, you are _wrong_, no conforming program would break. Some non-conforming programs may break, but it is their fault :-). > Just because it is in every compiler you have ever used doesn't make > it desirable to have it our libc. Just because it is useful (and being used) make it desirable to have it in our libc. (Then, after another 20 or so years, stpcpy() will be in the standard. :-) This is the purpose of the C language - be convenient.) Dima To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message