Subject: Re: lib/19638: isalpha (3) bug
To: Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Mike Cheponis <mac@Wireless.Com>
Date: 01/03/2003 18:59:55
I guess, in sum, I conclude that the isxxx() functions are broken. I know
that's not the "official" case, just my opinion.
Thanks all for being in on this discussion.
p.s. When I started this, the behavior I described was undocumented in 1.6.
It has now been properly documented, but I don't know if that fix has been
pulled up into 1.6 release.
I agree, I have no problem understanding the limitations of routines and
adhering to them.
Lastly, I -still- believe libc should be held to a higher standard. Maybe
I'm crazy on this, but it seems "reasonable" to me.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 18:02:23 -0800
> From: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Mike Cheponis <mac@Wireless.Com>
> Cc: matthew green <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> email@example.com, Dave Sainty <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: lib/19638: isalpha (3) bug
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 05:03:54PM -0800, Mike Cheponis wrote:
> > It's hard enough to write robust code in C, why have libc make it even
> > harder?
> We haven't made it any harder since, by definition, the behavior is
> undefined and users of the interface must avoid passing invalid arguments
> in order for the behavior to remain defined.
> No matter what system you have, you CANNOT RELY on "undefined behavior",
> and doing so makes your program LESS ROBUST by definition.
> -- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>