Subject: Re: iconv(3) prototype
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/02/2004 15:40:01
In article <email@example.com>,
T.SHIOZAKI <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Just to be clear here (sorry no coffee). I meant that we should leave
>> the prototype the way it is now:
>> size_t iconv __P((iconv_t, char ** __restrict,
>> size_t * __restrict, char ** __restrict,
>> size_t * __restrict));
>> add the reasoning in the bugs section, and ask Klaus to discuss changing
>> it to const char **restrict in the POSIX committee meetings.
>Oops, I reverted them... we should not touch them any more before
>the conclusion of the POSIX committee meetings, should we?
It seems to me that it is better to be compatible with the rest of the
OS's out there. Soda-san posted a list of prototypes from a variety
of OS's, and it seems to me that the other OS's are migrating from
"const char **restrict" to "char **restrict" which seems backwards to
me, but at least it is consistent (between the OS's). Since we have
not had a formal release with iconv(3), so I think that we should
follow what the majority of the OS's do. It is best right now to wait
a couple of days before doing anything and get klaus' opinion.