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

--n5n5t4j65mwc3v6f
Content-Type: text/plain; protected-headers=v1; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]>
To: "G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]>
Cc: Keith Bostic <[email protected]>, Sam James <[email protected]>, 
	Joseph Myers <[email protected]>, [email protected], Mark Harris <[email protected]>, 
	Nevin Liber <[email protected]>, JeanHeyd Meneide <[email protected]>, 
	Christopher Bazley <[email protected]>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>, 
	Iker Pedrosa <[email protected]>, "Evgeny Grin (Karlson2k)" <[email protected]>, 
	Kees Cook <[email protected]>, bug-gnulib-mXXj517/[email protected], libc-alpha-9JcytcrH/[email protected], 
	Douglas McIlroy <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: proposed revision to memory.h(3head) (was: on the
 irresponsibility of pursuing C language reform)
Message-ID: <am6XC0SIJaA5BdQZ@devuan>
References: <am3XeGZyi1Pvr77-@devuan>
 <[email protected]>
 <am4GT1OkqNZD9FF9@devuan>
 <[email protected]>
 <am4jxBOh_VRvhCQw@devuan>
 <CAETFuj2OwoyK9J85r2f0RoXbHbXKA4gQJ=JZ-7=QoqGcMwk0+Q-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
 <am51v4KmUmdzM-OT@devuan>
 <am5_uA4MSujYCS9X@devuan>
 <20260801235332.vc443gozbqkqdqm5@illithid>
 <am6HTtAMkEEkWjfl@devuan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <am6HTtAMkEEkWjfl@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=E2=
=80=90
> > > 	+     fied by ISO C.  This is a historic accident maintained for
> > > 	+     compatibility reasons.  Don=E2=80=99t let that fool you; these
> > > 	+     functions don=E2=80=99t necessarily operate on strings.
> > > 	+
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> [pasted [1] here]
> > [1] As one does with "all the glue", when one doesn't want a "major
> >     award" to be readily repaired...
>=20
> 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>
>=20
> 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

--=20
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

--n5n5t4j65mwc3v6f
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=eqng
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--n5n5t4j65mwc3v6f--