Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:27:06 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> Subject: Re: About extensible prinf(3), a slightly long X-mas card Message-ID: <20051217032706.A82898@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <24068.1134818291@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@phk.freebsd.dk on Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:18:11PM %2B0100 References: <20051217030513.A82342@xorpc.icir.org> <24068.1134818291@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:18:11PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20051217030513.A82342@xorpc.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes: ... > >I love the idea of extensible printf, and it's way way useful > >when handling ip addresses, hexdump and whatnot; but > >portability is an issue, and nobody would use it if > >the source code doesn't port to other systems. > > Everything under the sun has a portability cost these days because > the portable subset of the UNIX API is still too small to support > sensible programming. ... > For an extensible printf, I see little reason to add yet another > API, the GLIBC people got here first, the API is not optimal, but > it does work. so let me understand - perhaps i am missing this point. are you saying that if you link a program that uses these extensions with glibc it behaves as expected ? Then the portability issue would disappear (i.e. moves elsewhere where hopefully it has been solved already). cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051217032706.A82898>