[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: human interface change?!? [Re: xstrtol.h

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: human interface change?!? [Re: xstrtol.h
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:43:15 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.5.4

Hello Jim,

Jim Meyering wrote:
> Please revert those changes.

Reverted. Sorry, I thought the were straightforward and in line with what
you would agree to.

> More importantly, don't you think you should have waited for approval
> from Paul (and discussion on this list) before making an _interface change_
> to the "human" module?  Especially when I already expressed reluctance
> to change that part?

Sorry again; I interpreted your words as hesitation regarding the human.c
part. I thought Paul would speak up within two days. The change was in line
with the i18n issues we discussed. Regarding the interface change, you can
see from Google codesearch
that only coreutils and tar appear to be using this function; I verified
that the newest release of 'tar' doesn't use it.

> My concern is that uses of human may well be in contexts where there is
> *no* option/argument involved.  Hence you've now introduced an artificial
> constraint in making its diagnostic speak of an "argument".

Yes, but I checked all callers.

> As you can see, I disapprove of the human.h change (at least now, since
> I've seen no discussion at all), so also object to your using my name
> in the corresponding ChangeLog entry.

I'm sorry about that as well. I was hesitating whether to put one or two
ChangeLog entries.

> Finally, regarding your proposed coreutils patch, do you really think
> that passing a NULL "option string" into human_options is acceptable?

Since the option string is used only if report_errors = true, yes.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]