Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:57:50 -0600 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Assar Westerlund <assar@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libutil ecalloc.c emalloc.3 emalloc.c erealloc.c estrdup.c Makefile libutil.h Message-ID: <3698025593.995835470@blabber> In-Reply-To: <200107230223.f6N2Nfg14201@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Monday, July 23, 2001 3:23 AM +0100 Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
wrote:
> So we disagree. You believe these short functions bring consistency
> to our code. I believe that they obscure things and make them less
> portable.
>
> If anybody else wishes to chime in and express an opinion, now's a
> good time. I've said my piece and won't push this any further unless
> concensus says I should.
I'd rather see such a library in a port/package. Sure, the emalloc
etc., might help clarify applications, but like Brian I'm not convinced
they need to be in our standard library.
I know Brian was simply trying to illustrate a point, but eopen and
eclose might be good candidates to add to "libe" before commiting
the port.
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
Softweyr LLC http://softweyr.com/
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?3698025593.995835470>