Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I didn't say it was difficult. It's easy. It's also silly. Why > > should I worry all the time about such adaptation? > > > > How many languages do you want me to support? > > > > C++ is an *incompatible* extension of C. Extension yes, compatible, > > no. > > Just a weeks ago, you were arguing on one of the glibc lists that the > strl* functions should be included in glibc because it is (1) easy and > (2) it makes glibc/applications more portable/easily ported. What is > the difference between these two arguments?
Adding functions to the library does not, in fact, increase grot in the library. It's just another file, in a well-organized scheme of files, one new entry in a Makefile, and that's it. The C library is very carefully organized around the idea that it's a bunch of such files. Such extension is an explicit and normal part of C library maintenance. Changing header files to add such ifdefs does, in fact, make them uglier and harder to read. Unlike adding functions to the library, the grot is much more visible to people who are trying to read the header file. And, most importantly, header files are *not* designed to be used by N different languages at once [whereas the C library *is* designed to have N different functions at once]. Thomas
