[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2023 17:05:59 +0200
From: i262jq@...se
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: __MUSL__ macro
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 02:14:30PM +0100, Alastair Houghton wrote:
> issue of whether or not musl should have `__MUSL__` and `__MUSL_MINOR__`.
Introducing such macros would allow and encourage reliance on
implementation details instead of following the standards.
This means encouraging non-portable programming.
I think this already have been said on this list.
In other words, the question is not whether a change would make sense
for specific cases, but whether the effect on the _rest_ of the usage
of the library would be acceptable.
IMHO the effect would be to undermine portability and maintainability
in the long run, for yet unknown / unlimited set of softwares to be
maintained or written in the future.
Kudos to musl developers for a firm stance against misfeatures, also
ones which non-portable (possibly _right now and here_ attractive)
solutions would have a use for.
/i262jq
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.
