Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us> writes:
> I'll admit to being somewhat .. vague .. on requirements for namespace
> cleanliness, but as I understand it, we really need two names..  one
> which avoids the user namespace so we can use this function in system
> libraries, and one which avoids the implementation namespace (for use
> in commands and "portable" libraries).

yes.

the public name of the function as defined in headers and generally
used in userland code should be the one that avoids the implementation
namespace.

For use in e.g. libc, it's aliased to the implementation-namespace
version and redefined in the same way that other libc goop is.
c.f. all of the functions mentioned in libc/include/namespace.h.

i'm not sure how calls to the function in libc should work,
i.e. whether they should be calls to the implementation namespace
version, or calls to the normal version which get #defined to the
implementation namespace version; look at the code which uses
functions named in namespace.h to find that out.




chris