Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:17:26 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Cc: Assar Westerlund <assar@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libutil ecalloc.c emalloc.3 emalloc.c erealloc.c estrdup.c Makefile libutil.h Message-ID: <200107231617.f6NGHQg64239@grimreaper.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: <200107230223.f6N2Nfg14201@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> ; from Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> "Mon, 23 Jul 2001 03:23:41 %2B0100." References: <200107230223.f6N2Nfg14201@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> So we disagree. You believe these short functions bring consistency > to our code. I believe that they obscure things and make them less > portable. > > If anybody else wishes to chime in and express an opinion, now's a > good time. I've said my piece and won't push this any further unless > concensus says I should. I'm with Brian. Although the e*() functions have a strong natural appeal, they are not present in any libc implementations, and until they are by general concensus, making them here is just going to make the libiberty/libroken mess worse. M -- Mark Murray Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn 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?200107231617.f6NGHQg64239>