[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: strtonum(3) from OpenBSD?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:50:18AM -0500, David Young wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 05:35:04PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:29:56AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > > Returning an error *string* is so profoundly bogus I have trouble
> > > imagining that anyone with more than a few weeks' experience programming
> > > in C doesn't see why.
> > Indeed, but if we change it to a better API it will imediately loose
> > it's portability value.
> What if we write strtonum(3) in terms of an API that we do like, and
> indicate in the manual page that strtonum(3) should not be used for new
Sure, we could do that. We could also cause every string returned by
strtonum(3) to be "USELESS ERROR STRING -- SEE ERRNO", since the function
does set errno, and document that our implementation does so. But I
still don't see how this justifies adding this bogus interface to libc.
Main Index |
Thread Index |