Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:32:12 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen Makefile.inc Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001281625270.41316-100000@green.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200001280714.XAA38397@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Bruce Evans wrote: > bde 2000/01/27 23:14:54 PST > > Modified files: > lib/libc/gen Makefile.inc > Log: > Install setflags.3 and its link to getflags.3. Am I the only one that's disturbed by the fact that this (nonstandard) function pair has such generic names? Already, it has broken world in two places. It's just not a good idea to have such generic functions in our headers (even if it's more okay for them to be in the libaries...) How about (for instance) strflags() for getflags() and strtoflags() for setflags()? The names right now are extremely ambigous, plus getflags() returns a pointer to a STATIC BUFFER, a very bad and inherently messy, thread-unsafe, etc. etc. thing. Plus, it's not even noted in the manpage. I really have huge beef with these functions... Am I really the only one, and everyone else likes them as they are? > Revision Changes Path > 1.61 +4 -2 src/lib/libc/gen/Makefile.inc -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0001281625270.41316-100000>