Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:28:10 +0000 (UTC) From: Jacob Welsh <jacob+musl@...shcomputing.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Locale support considered harmful noise On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, A. Wilcox wrote: > Why do you not believe that musl could provide any of these features > using clear and concise code? I fully expect it could. The point at issue however is whether it should be done at all. > I have been personally impacted by the lack of LC_COLLATE support. I have been personally "impacted" by its presence in glibc, but perhaps I'm not the sort of "real world" user whose needs you would like to represent. > This will allow non-English speakers the ability to understand the > errors that are happening on the computers they own. You may be overestimating a bit there the abilities of most English speakers to "communicate with their computers" or specifically to decode error messages; anyway, what your approach actually does is to fragment the knowledge base and herd people *away* from where they might find the best information. Now, this dispute is at least as old as the Protestant Reformation so I do not expect or require it to be settled here. > In fact, musl is *not* conformant to the POSIX standard *because* it > does not implement the requisite locale support. We're prepared to fork POSIX or any other document that proves necessary. Not like it's hard. On the other hand, I suppose someone will get right to work translating POSIX and all the musl code and commentary to every presently spoken language, because after all they look mighty Anglocentric to me and no one coder's needs matter more than another's. Sarcasm aside, I'm satisfied that our differences have been made clear and am happy to let it rest. Yours truly, J. Welsh http://fixpoint.welshcomputing.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.