Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Darren Reed wrote:
>   
>> 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)?
>>
>>     
>
> in my proposal, i was hoping to provide a consistent feel between
> string(3c) and string(9f).
>
> i was planning to document strcpy() in string(9f), and then strcpy(9f)
> would be a link to string(9f).  string(9f) would also subsume the
> strchr(9F), strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F) man pages, which
> would also become links to string(9f).
>
> there would be no independant version of strcpy(9f).
>
> does that clarify things?
>   

That's exactly what I was hoping for, thanks.

Cheers,
Darren


Reply via email to