[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: rb_tree_iterate(3) documentation vs. implementation
David Young <dyoung%pobox.com@localhost> 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.
Main Index |
Thread Index |