On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 08:20:32AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> 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
>
Let me elaborate. IMO, if the WG refuses to include a common function
user in various platforms into the standard and instead insist on
naming it differently it just creates confusion and work and thus
bugs. In that, it hinders progress instead of enabling it.
-Otto
