Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:16:08 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal to restore traditional BSD behavior in <strings.h>. Message-ID: <20041017011608.GA6140@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20041016183202.GA76917@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <20041016174419.GA96297@dragon.nuxi.com> <20041016183202.GA76917@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 02:32:02PM -0400, David Schultz wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2004, David O'Brien wrote: > > I'd like to restore the traditional BSD behavior that <strings.h> > > includes the content of <string.h> in addition to the BSD bcmp, et. al. > > We changed our <strings.h> between 4.x and 5.x and now that we're at > > 5-STABLE I'm finding software that built fine on 4.x has an issue on 5.x. > > It has been this way for 2.5 years, and nobody has complained > until now AFAIK. Therefore, it seems unlikely that there's enough > affected unportable software out there to justify undoing the > efforts at reducing namespace pollution now. > > Moreover, there's a *lot* of pollution in string.h, where as > strings.h has very little. Polluting strings.h again increases > the chances that portable applications that use strings.h will > break due to naming conflicts. An application using <strings.h> is only portable across BSD's. <strings.h> isn't POSIX. I totally don't understand why we made a <strings.h> that is incompatible with our BSD breathern. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041017011608.GA6140>