Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:36:12 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r Message-ID: <20010122093612.D93103@hamlet.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <200101212136.f0LLaM901943@harmony.village.org>; from imp@harmony.village.org on Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 02:36:22PM -0700 References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121162703.14751A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <200101212136.f0LLaM901943@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010122093612.D93103>