Re: proposed revision to memory.h(3head) (was: on the irresponsibility of pursuing C language reform)

Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> Sun, 2 Aug 2026 03:03:27 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.man,gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs,gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha
Message-ID	<am6XC0SIJaA5BdQZ@devuan>

> Date: 2026-08-02 02:27:44+0200
> From: Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]>
>
> > Date: 2026-08-01 18:53:32-0500
> > From: "G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]>
> >
> > At 2026-08-02T01:24:28+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
[...]
> > > 	 DESCRIPTION
> > > 	+     These functions are also provided in <string.h>, as speci‐
> > > 	+     fied by ISO C.  This is a historic accident maintained for
> > > 	+     compatibility reasons.  Don’t let that fool you; these
> > > 	+     functions don’t necessarily operate on strings.
> > > 	+
> > 
> > That's a heavy editorial slant.  I don't think it was a historical
> > accident; it was a historical "on purpose"[1], with which you disagree.
> 
> [pasted [1] here]
> > [1] As one does with "all the glue", when one doesn't want a "major
> >     award" to be readily repaired...
> 
> The C89 Rationale document doesn't document this as an intentional
> change (or even as a change at all).
> <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/C89Rationale.pdf>
> 
> I'd certainly be interested in hearing first-hand information,
> if anyone has it.  Maybe Keith would be the best candidate for that.

Actually, s/accident/mistake/ is more correct.  It was most likely done
on purpose, even if unaware of the consequences it would have.  That's
not an accident but a mistake.


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)