[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-06-18

Joseph Kowalski jek3 at sun.com
Wed Jun 18 12:06:36 PDT 2008

Jeff Licquia wrote:
> __getdelim.  Robert: avoid __ interfaces generally.  Jeff: policy 
> decision, do we include __ when there's an optimization to be had?  Ted: 
> do we know that this is just an optimization?  Jeff: bug seems to 
> indicate that.  Really really really want.  Robert, Kay: how do you 
> know?  Jeff: ISV demand, bug reports that things are slow that can be 
> traced to this.  Ted: makes sense, probably want to add a note to the 
> database about __getdelim and then wait for someone to express a need.

If there is a need for something called "__getdelim", perhaps you should
create a public interface called "getdelim"?

If the LSB were to produce a specification for __getdelim, the LSB would
be in violation of POSIX....  Remember that stuff about "symbols beginning
with `_[_A-Z]' belonging to the implementation".

Even if there is an optimization to be had here, perhaps the implementation
believes that its not stable?

(Again, terse summary, but maybe this is what Ted is leading to.)

- jek3

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list