James Youngman wrote:
On 6/8/07, Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd say this behaviour violates the principle of least astonishment, at
least. Mind you, avoiding it does seem like it could be expensive: [...]
Maybe. For the issue-diagnostic-message use case, performance is not
such an issue
Petr Baudis wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:02:53PM CEST, Jeremy Linton wrote:
From monitoring this mailing list for a while it appears apparent
that certain people pride themselves in rejecting any patch which improves
the robustness of glibc.
I would describe it rather as not trading
It may well be that the current glibc behavior is not prohibited by
any standard, but I think that "quality of implementation" concerns
(not to mention a desire for robustness and security) would dictate a
more manageable result.
Your right, it would seem that if its possible to make a fix t
