Edward Pilatowicz wrote: > 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. >
It's more that I was curious if there was enough synergy with what you're doing and what exists to provide a more consistent feel to the documentation between sections 3C and 9F - not to add new interfaces to the ddi. e.g. strcpy(3c), etc, all point to string(3c), so why should strcpy(9f) need to be independat to string(9f)? >> 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... > I think adding me to the interest list for the bug would be fine. I'm perfectly happy with the architecture (so please don't count me as dissenting), I think this is just something for the docs folks to think about after. Darren
