Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 07:54:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> To: adam@whizkidtech.net, dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: wc* routines Message-ID: <199905061154.HAA73794@lakes.dignus.com> In-Reply-To: <19990505214934.B217@whizkidtech.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I will also need to get some input on some "philosophical" questions. Namely, > I will need to build several tables for the wctype.h functionality. The thing > is that the standard is open: New codes can and will be added to it. I need > to decide whether to hardcode the tables or place them into files. At this > point, I am leaning toward the hardcoded solution for several reasons: A file > can be misplaced or lost, or even corrupted; the changes do not happen too > often; the changes do not affect major languages and are of little consequence > to most computer users (so if Egyptian hieroglyphics are added to plane 1 as > planned, Egyptologists will need to update their C libraries, while us mortals > may pretty much ignore it); it is just as easy to download an update of the > C library as an update of several files. For what it's worth, I will need to > write some utilities for my own use, utilities to create the code for tables. > So any time they add some new code of interest to only a small group of people, > the group can use the utilities on their own computers, and simply recompile > the library even if I am on vacation, or whatever. I mention this, somewhat facetiously... but one of the fundamental discoveries in computer science was the idea of separation between code and data. Although you bring up good points; realize that you are violating that tenet... and as such, are inviting potential trouble. I'm not saying that it is to be taken to the extreme... and there certainly are situations that call for placing data in the "code" as it were... If you want to do such a thing, I would suggest that the reasons _for_ it be *very* strong, and there be none against it... I don't get the impression, from your description above, that is the case. Perhaps a half-way point is needed, much as the locale library is implemented. Provide, in the library, some default table that is a "reasonable subset of everything" so programs don't just blow up if they can't find the file... then, provide the mechanism for reading the file if they can find it. And, you shouldn't assume those Egyptologists can actually recompile & relink their code. For example, if a word-processing company has sold them a program - it's likely to be quite some time before the next release which is recompiled/relinked with newer FreeBSD libraries is available... But, if the data was separate from the code - the Egyptologists would simply need to get the new file & not require a new release from their vendor (see - powerful, ain't it.) Since you mentioned "philisophical" :-) . - Dave Rivers - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905061154.HAA73794>