Re: strsuftoi(3), strsuftou(3) proposal in libc

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

    Date:        Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:55:21 +0000 (UTC)
    From:        christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
    Message-ID:  <n0ubl9$98u$1%ger.gmane.org@localhost>

  | The reasoning is that if you want to keep your code trully portable,
  | you have to make functionality, brevity, and reliability compromises
  | by using only functions mentioned in the standard.

And in any case, for any *BSD added functions, app code that uses them can
always just include a copy with their sources if needed - doing so doesn't
cause any stupid GPL like restrictions to suddenly encumber the project,
and the *BSDs don't in any way restrict distribution, or use, of the
sources, so this is not really much of a problem.

  | Instead what we do in practice is design new functions that should be
  | in the standard.

Agreed, 100%

  | The standards typically lag a lot behind,

With the possible caveat of "a lot" being kind of vague, so they should.

This is the way that standards should be developed.   All standards, in all
fields.   Innovation happens, then we wait and see which parts of that
innovation actually become popular - then to make it easier for everyone to
be compatible, the innovation becomes standardised, so everyone can see
what it offers, and what is needed to make it happen (whether or not the
original is available for free for others to use.)

That requires a delay between the innovation, and the standardisation,
though whether that delay should ever amount to what someone would
characterise as "lagging a lot behind" is questionable (funding issues
for standardisation bodies aside.)

The common trend for standards bodies to act as legislatures, and simply
decide what they think the world should look like, and invent it, leads
to awful abominations, and all kinds of problems - the best thing for all
of us is to simply ignore that when we detect it.  When stds orgs act like
that, it is entirely reasonable that they start loosing support (both
funding and use of their products.)

kre