On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:56:48PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:29:14PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 01:02:55PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' > > Serbinenko wrote: > > > Robert Millan wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 09:32:24AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:30:12AM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' > > > >> Serbinenko wrote: > > > >>> +char *EXPORT_FUNC(grub_asprintf) (const char *fmt, ...) > > > >>> + __attribute__ ((format (printf, 1, 2))); > > > >> > > > >> It's very confusing that you've made grub_asprintf have a dramatically > > > >> different interface from asprintf. Perhaps you could call this > > > >> grub_xasprintf instead? > > > > > > > > Is it feasible to implement the same interface as asprintf instead? > > > > > > it's feasible but the only advantage it gives is the return value nobody > > > uses anyway > > > > What about consistency with what programmers expect? > > > > If you don't want the return value, you can just discard it. > > asprintf is not really an advantageous interface to emulate. It > requires tedious manual error handling and hardly anyone gets it right > (GRUB didn't get it right across the board, before I converted it to > xasprintf!), not to mention that error_code = function (&string, ...) is > unpleasant to start with. xasprintf is a much nicer interface; simply > returning the string is what most programmers *actually* expect unless > they've already bent their brains around asprintf.
Meh, I guess I'm one of those programmers who bent their brains. Ok, feel free to go with proposed interface as grub_xasprintf(). -- Robert Millan "Be the change you want to see in the world" -- Gandhi _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
