On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 08:13:24AM +0200, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> Am 11.08.20 um 02:52 schrieb Theo de Raadt:
> >
> > But no, WG14 are the lords and masters in the high castle, and now 6
> > years after the ship sailed something Must Be Done, it must look like
> > They Solved The Problem, and so they'll create an incompatible API.
> >
> > Will they be heroes? No, not really. Changing the name is villainous.
> >
>
> The purpose of WG14 is to codify existing practise, not to invent (see
> N2086 http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2086.htm, 8. and
> 13.).
>
> WG14 has reserved some identifiers for future extensions of the
> standard. E.g. those starting with mem_. Naturally, others then choose
> identifiers that do not conflict with this, such as explicit_bzero. But
> if that name is then used in the standard unchanged, it would mean that
> future extensions only use exactly those identifiers not reserved for
> future extensions.
>
> Philipp
But if we would use reserved identifiers, we would be castigated for that.
Don't you see your process does not work?
-Otto
