Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:30:28 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> Subject: Re: About extensible prinf(3), a slightly long X-mas card Message-ID: <24152.1134819028@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:27:06 PST." <20051217032706.A82898@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20051217032706.A82898@xorpc.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes: >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). I'd really hope so, but havn't tried. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24152.1134819028>