About extensible prinf(3), a slightly long X-mas card

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <20051217032706.A82898 at xorpc.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes:
>On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:18:11PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <20051217030513.A82342 at xorpc.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes:
>...
>> >I love the idea of extensible printf, and it's way way useful
>> >when handling ip addresses, hexdump and whatnot; but
>> >portability is an issue, and nobody would use it if
>> >the source code doesn't port to other systems.
>> 
>> Everything under the sun has a portability cost these days because
>> the portable subset of the UNIX API is still too small to support
>> sensible programming.
>...
>> For an extensible printf, I see little reason to add yet another
>> API, the GLIBC people got here first, the API is not optimal, but
>> it does work.
>
>so let me understand - perhaps i am missing this point.
>
>are you saying that if you link a program that uses these extensions
>with glibc it behaves as expected ?  Then the portability issue
>would disappear (i.e. moves elsewhere where hopefully it has been
>solved already).

I'd really hope so, but havn't tried.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.