On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 02:07:57PM +0100, Darren Reed wrote: > Christopher Horne wrote: >> .... >> These functions will be documented in a new man page, >> string(9F). For consistency with string(3C), the new >> string(9F) man page will also subsume contents of strchr(9F), >> strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F). >> > > Is there any particular reason why we aren't going to whole > way here and documenting the same functions on string(9F) > as we do with string(3C)? (i.e. why does strcpy(9f) need > to be separate, or did that just get missed in the writing of > this email?) >
i'm preparing a large putback that was going to introduce multiple private versions of strcpy() and strfree(). one of my code reviewers pointed out that this seemed suboptimal, and i agreed. hence this case. by all means, you should feel free to determine if there are any more string(3C) interfaces missing from the ddi and add them yourself, but i didn't make that a part of this case. > For completeness, can a draft copy of the proposed > string(9F) please be placed in the case directory? > given how trivial these interfaces are, i'd prefer not to. i believe the current proposal compleatly documents the semantics of the new interfaces i'm introducing. (hence adding man pages would just be adding noise to this case.) if your confused about how these interfaces will behave then please ask more specific questions and i can improved the case material. if you're just interested in reviewing the final man pages i can add you on the interest list of the man page bug i'll be filing. hopefully your ok with this... thanks ed
