"G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]> writes:
> At 2026-08-03T01:08:32+0200, Arsen Arsenović wrote: >> Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> writes: >> > Most programmers can live in the safe bubble of <string.h>: those >> > functions always require a string as input, and always provide a >> > string as output. Plain and simple. It's difficult to write bugs >> > when using those. >> > >> > That's the rationale. >> >> I do not follow. >> >> C has no namespaces, let alone qualified imports. > > That's true. > >> The name of a header providing some function is thus inconsequential. > > Then why not have one official big header file for the whole standard? > > #include <stdlibc.h> > > When you answer that to your own satisfaction, I suspect you'll have > little trouble following Alex's argument. > > ...which doesn't mean you'll agree with it. Plan 9 did this but with "#include <libc.h>" and it seems to have worked fine. I can't help but wonder of what happens in WG 14 rejects this controversial, as obvious by this thread, change. Will the man-pages changes be reverted? Or will we slowly watch them document personal preferences instead of existing standards? After seeing weekly threads about the prototype changes, I don't think it is an unreasonable concern. Collin
