On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40:08PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore via illumos-developer wrote: > Explicitly listing involved standards would be nice if we had the data > close to hand. We don't, and collecting it all is a rather enormous task. > Many of these APIs are also covered by a large number of standards. For > example, strcpy() is covered by every C standard, every C++ standard, every > POSIX standard, all the SVID standards, and all the de facto BSD standards. > In some cases its much uglier. For example, strftime() and strptime() > have complex details where format specifiers were added by different > standards at different points in time.
Right. In the case of strftime/strptime I could see the narrative mention that it's special and then have the narrative in the STANDARDS section give you more details. > If someone wants to do the huge research and editing task, I'm supportive. > My guess is that this is simply too much work and too little gain, and > that referencing standards(5) was seen as an escape hatch from having to do > this work by the various parties at Sun who were responsible for this entry. I suspect you are right and that ultimately requiring a STANDARDS section would be counter-productive. How about making it optional? If the contributor feels like documenting it (in some cases it is *easy*)...let him. Jeff. -- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes. ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
