Proposal to restore traditional BSD behavior in <strings.h>.
wollman at khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu
Sat Oct 16 21:44:59 PDT 2004
In article <20041017011608.GA6140 at dragon.nuxi.com> you write:
>On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 02:32:02PM -0400, David Schultz wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2004, David O'Brien wrote:
>> > I'd like to restore the traditional BSD behavior that <strings.h>
>> > includes the content of <string.h> in addition to the BSD bcmp, et. al.
>> > We changed our <strings.h> between 4.x and 5.x and now that we're at
>> > 5-STABLE I'm finding software that built fine on 4.x has an issue on 5.x.
>> It has been this way for 2.5 years, and nobody has complained
>> until now AFAIK. Therefore, it seems unlikely that there's enough
>> affected unportable software out there to justify undoing the
>> efforts at reducing namespace pollution now.
>> Moreover, there's a *lot* of pollution in string.h, where as
>> strings.h has very little. Polluting strings.h again increases
>> the chances that portable applications that use strings.h will
>> break due to naming conflicts.
><strings.h> isn't POSIX.
BZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing. See XBD6 page 331.
However, it is an XSI header, and we don't claim to support XSI, so
theoretically we can define anything we want in <strings.h>. I
believe, however, that it has been a better policy to force-migrate
users of the functions specified in the C standard to the header
specified in the C standard.
More information about the freebsd-arch