Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - Standardizing functions starting with '__' would encourage users to > adopt similar naming conventions (since users often use conventions > prototyped by the OS vendors)
I'm not that worried about it. I think users will know what they're getting into. Standards can standardize names that are reserved to the implementation. This doesn't happen often, but it does happen, e.g., __bool_true_false_are_defined (for C99), _Exit (for Posix). The other points you mention are about whether the existing interface could be improved. These are good points but this is a separate issue from the naming convention. > How can anyone expect users to understand that '__' symbols are reserved, > if glibc documents such functions? I think that message is pretty clear already -- or at least it's as clear as it's ever going to be -- and this is true regardless of the fact that the standard and some implementations document some __ symbols. For what it's worth, Solaris and glibc both document these functions. If it had been me, I would have omitted the leading __ from all the names. But the damage is done now, I'm afraid. Existing code in coreutils, Emacs, and I assume elsewhere already uses the __ names. So the horse left the barn on this issue several years ago. Anyway, it's not that big a deal.
