Subject: Re: mklocale, take 2
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 10/22/2001 21:36:37
    Date:        Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:39:16 -0400 (EDT)
    From:        der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
    Message-ID:  <200110221339.JAA17000@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>

  | (Watch the parentheses.)

Ah .. OK...

  | This I have to disagree with.  Not all code is intended to be portable
  | to the entire known universe, or is "broken" if it's not.

No, of course not.   But code attempting to generate some externally
defined binary format, and relying upon packed structs to achieve that
is broken.   Relying on unpacked structs is almost as broken.

And "entire known universe" is not quite relevant - just remaining workable
over minor compiler changes, on the same platform, is the kind of correctness
that can't be expected with that coding style.

For mklocale it isn't even as if anyone can really be worried about the
extra cpu costs of doing manual packing of the data - it isn't exactly a
tool that gets a huge amount of use.