Hi Sam, At 2026-07-31T22:59:47+0100, Sam James wrote: > "G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]> writes: > > At 2026-07-31T21:23:35+0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > >> I think it's irresponsible to use the man-pages project to promote > >> personal idiosyncratic ideas like this in preference to what's been > >> the standard location of functions since 1989. > > > > I'm sure I don't need to bring to your attention what a mine field > > string/`char` sequence/memory buffer handling has been in C since the > > language's inception. > > > > More to the point: what's a better forum for pursuing this attempt at > > reform that will both (a) reach a significant population of stakeholders > > who can variously red-team it and/or endorse it; and (b) has sufficient > > visibility that it can't easily be ignored by people who oppose reform > > in this area for whatever reason? > > I think the man page already tries to discourage use in its CAVEATS > section.
Yes, but that's not a language reform, which is what Alex is pursuing with "alx-0097r1". In at least one earlier iteration he's expressed his intention to submit an N document to WG14. > > I hope you do not wish to imply that a closed session of some > > committee, or unofficial backroom politicking would be preferable, > > nor that WG14 should close its doors to members of its user > > community who have not been vetted for a disinclination to > > boat-rocking. > > I am confused as to where that implication could have possibly come > from. From familiarity with Alex's stated objective and rationale, which we can acquire from the recent list traffic Joseph characterized as irresponsible. AC> The C Committee is discussing standardization of <memory.h>, so AC> let's give it a bump. AC> I'll send you a copy of a paper I'm writing for the C Committee. AC> It is at the bottom of this email. I will publish it as an N AC> document in August. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/784288e704183a4297aeaa3d13af8edab18bc1ea.1785532392.git....@kernel.org/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/amaTpQxd52iYjlor@devuan/ > Joseph is opposing the change in the form of a patch that is > likely to be applied (*) to man-pages.git which has the effect of > advocacy. Yes, and he said so categorically. More constructive advice might have taken the form of recommending a sequencing for staged changes. Here's a crude sketch. 1. Expand "CAVEATS" sections in relevant Linux man-pages documents. 2. Pursue N-document work with WG14. 3. When WG14 has disposed of that N-document (and any descendants thereof), update Linux man-pages documents as appropriate. Joseph's almost certainly better placed than I to add a "step 1.5" such that Alex might pursue some course that would better prepare the ground for his step 2. I haven't attempted revision of the C language standard myself, so I can't offer specific advice regarding how best to pursue such an objective. I possess only notions of elemental principles regarding how democratic, consultative bodies of technical experts _should_ serve the public. That _is_ what we're here for, right? > I don't think it has anything to do with WG14 membership or anything > of the like? What am I missing? See above regarding Alex's publicly circulated drafts and expressed plans. > (*) Alex has a history of making opinonated changes like this to > man-pages, such as removing references to older standards, and > using a somewhat novel (to many) syntax for prototypes. I concur with that assessment. However, a person having a history of making opinionated changes is not sound grounds for evaluation of a technical proposal, especially if it's topically unrelated. Preoccupying oneself with irrelevancies distracts from the conscientious execution of standards committee participation. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
