tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: rb_tree_iterate(3) documentation vs. implementation

David Young <> wrote:
> Regarding pr/46034, the manual describes one behavior for
> rb_tree_iterate(3), while the implementation actually provides another.
> The behavior described in the manual seems much more sensible and
> useful, and I would like to change the implementation to match: see the
> attached patch.

This is almost 2-years old thread, but FYI:

See "IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS" section.  Apparently, Apple decided to change
the API i.e. the behaviour of rb_tree_iterate(3).  So, we are incompatible.

I guess the lesson is: if vendors do not communicate with us, we should
just go ahead with our changes instead of worrying about them.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index