Karl Williamson wrote: > On 3/28/19 8:03 AM, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > It is unspecified whether the locale object pointed to by base > > shall be modified, or freed and a new locale object created. > > I can see how you might be able to argue for your interpretation. I > believe the wording in the spec is poor in this case (and it isn't the > only such place). I, and every other implementer takes the above text > to mean, that it's up to the implementation as to how to combine 'base' > with the new locale specified by the other parameters. 'base' can be > modified and returned, or 'base' can be freed with some new locale which > is the combination of 'base' and the other parameters. I don't take > that wording to mean that 'base' can be irrelevant. That can't be the > intent, as that would mean wildly unportable code, and no way for the > program to specify an update to a category in isolation from the others.
I would agree. > > In any case, in the commit message, do not call it a "bug fix", > > describe it as a change for compatibility with other systems. > > > > Ted, feel free to either commit this version or tell me to commit. Your version is good to commit. If you like, you may call it a workaround for a specification bug that permitted the current behavior. :)
