Eric Blake wrote:
> is there any reason to have the c_strstr
> module? Its implementation looks like it is identical to the POSIX
> requirements for strstr (POSIX states that strstr always operates on byte
> sequences, whether or not they form valid character strings for the
> current locale). Your comments about when it is safe to use c_strstr
> rather than mbsstr, even in the presence of multibyte sequence locales, is
> useful, but as far as I could see, those comments apply equally to strstr.
The point of c-strstr is
1) completeness of the c-str* functions API,
2) I cannot recommend the use of the functions strstr, strcasecmp etc.
to anyone: these functions don't work in multibyte locales. They
are internationalized for ISO-8859-1 locales and therefore give a
false sense of internationalization.
I'm adding doc about this:
http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commitdiff;h=4a3dfbf40eba25a6d355db2ae5ac721f862a0557
But I agree with you: The _implementation_ of c-strstr could make use
of the strstr() function because POSIX guarantees that the latter operates on
byte sequences.
Bruno
