> Date: 2026-08-02 02:27:44+0200 > From: Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> > > > Date: 2026-08-01 18:53:32-0500 > > From: "G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]> > > > > At 2026-08-02T01:24:28+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: [...] > > > DESCRIPTION > > > + These functions are also provided in <string.h>, as speci‐ > > > + fied by ISO C. This is a historic accident maintained for > > > + compatibility reasons. Don’t let that fool you; these > > > + functions don’t necessarily operate on strings. > > > + > > > > That's a heavy editorial slant. I don't think it was a historical > > accident; it was a historical "on purpose"[1], with which you disagree. > > [pasted [1] here] > > [1] As one does with "all the glue", when one doesn't want a "major > > award" to be readily repaired... > > The C89 Rationale document doesn't document this as an intentional > change (or even as a change at all). > <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/C89Rationale.pdf> > > I'd certainly be interested in hearing first-hand information, > if anyone has it. Maybe Keith would be the best candidate for that.
Actually, s/accident/mistake/ is more correct. It was most likely done on purpose, even if unaware of the consequences it would have. That's not an accident but a mistake. Cheers, Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
