From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jan 22 7:36:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2977737B401 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 07:36:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from hamlet.nectar.com (hamlet.nectar.com [10.0.1.102]) by gw.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7348E193E4; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:36:12 -0600 (CST) Received: (from nectar@localhost) by hamlet.nectar.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id f0MFaCe93334; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:36:12 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from nectar@spawn.nectar.com) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:36:12 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Warner Losh Cc: Daniel Eischen , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r Message-ID: <20010122093612.D93103@hamlet.nectar.com> References: <200101212136.f0LLaM901943@harmony.village.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200101212136.f0LLaM901943@harmony.village.org>; from imp@harmony.village.org on Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 02:36:22PM -0700 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 02:36:22PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > I understand that. I guess my question is why name it _foo instead of > __foo? I see the need for the tripartiteness, just not the need to > call it _foo. I don't mind much either way. `_foo' is fine in terms of namespaces (as long as it is a macro). `_foo' is less typing and less ugly than `__foo'. On the other hand, I would rather just `foo' where possible. That would mean making sigaction, close, kevent, et cetera special cases, however. Well, we could #define sigaction(x) sigaction##x but then we'd have to resort to #ifdef __LIBC__ or something in headers. *sigh* -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message