From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue May 4 10:12:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from helios.dnttm.ru (unknown [193.232.0.205]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8384314C0F for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 10:12:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by helios.dnttm.ru (8.9.1/8.9.1/IP-3) with UUCP id VAA20971; Tue, 4 May 1999 21:09:12 +0400 Received: from tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA04689; Tue, 4 May 1999 21:11:45 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru) Message-Id: <199905041711.VAA04689@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96 To: "G. Adam Stanislav" Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wc* routines In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 May 1999 11:36:48 CDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 21:11:45 +0400 From: Dmitrij Tejblum Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Well, just several comments (all IMO). > At the present, the page contains some introduction to what wc* routines are > for, as well as the headers and . I also created an > additional, system specific, header which I called . I would > like your input on whether the contents of this header belong there, or should > be moved to , or perhaps whether its name should be changed, > and such. Well, not bad. Still, your headers apparently have too much namespace pollution. Your include . Apparently, to get definition of va_list. First, the modern definition of va_list is in (symlink to , conflict with ), second, you should not include any of them, you should use _BSD_VA_LIST_, just like . Likewise, you should not include . Try use some similar trick. In general, everything more than and is too much. should not exist. _BSD* macros missng from should be added there. WCS* macros have unknown purpose and pollute the namespace, therefore they should not exist. In general, headers under machine/ should be machine-depended :-). I don't like your idea that WEOF == INT_MIN. Apparently, everyone else have WEOF == -1 (== EOF), and there is no reason why we should not too. I don't know about "debugging purposes". WEOF == EOF should allow more code sharing with existing libc. Note that FreeBSD already have some very sparse and nonstandard (but functional) wchar support. > I started with the headers because it does not seem to make much sense to me > to work on the code without good headers. Well, but implementation is also important ;-). Unimplemented headers are somewhat confusing when committed into the tree - we already have examples... > Also, what belongs inside those > headers is pretty much defined by standards, so they were fairly easy to > write. :-) Note that a major portion of already almost implemented in FreeBSD: plain ctype functions work with wide characters. So it should be fairly easy to write an almost working . (BTW, it is somewhere on my ToDo list for quite some time, but now not that far from the top). Good luck. Dima To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message