Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:44:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal to restore traditional BSD behavior in <strings.h>. Message-ID: <200410170444.i9H4iu1M077075@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20041017011608.GA6140@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20041016174419.GA96297@dragon.nuxi.com> <20041016183202.GA76917@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20041017011608.GA6140@dragon.nuxi.com> you write: >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. > ><strings.h> isn't POSIX. BZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing. See XBD6 page 331. However, it is an XSI header, and we don't claim to support XSI, so theoretically we can define anything we want in <strings.h>. I believe, however, that it has been a better policy to force-migrate users of the functions specified in the C standard to the header specified in the C standard. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410170444.i9H4iu1M077075>