This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002

From: tb at becket dot net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v dot loewis dot de>
Cc: torvalds at transmeta dot com, roland at frob dot com, kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net, rra at stanford dot edu, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: 09 Jan 2002 23:42:00 -0800
Subject: Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201091742460.1109-100000@penguin.transmeta.com><200201100735.g0A7Zr901426@mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de>

"Martin v. Loewis" <martin@v.loewis.de> writes:

> > So the arguments _for_ adding to it have to be damn strong. I don't think
> > they have been so far.
> 
> Exactly. An International Standard mandating presence of additional
> functions is normally considered a strong-enough argument. The next
> revision of C might happen 2009 or so, so until then, we're safe :-)

I find it totally bogus that we should resist adding functions to
glibc merely because it's supposedly bad to add functions.  What would
you say about a university librarian who said "we've decided not to
buy any more books"?

Thomas

References:
- Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
  - From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
  - From: Martin v. Loewis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]