Hi Branden, > Date: 2026-07-31 17:24:17-0500 > From: "G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]> > > 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.
Indeed. > > > 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/ Thanks for posting the links. I've seen Doug was CCd on the second, so I've bounced him the patch set and alx-0097r1, in case he's interested. > > > 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? Yes. Some more details: I've obviously circulated this earlier within WG14, and CCd Keith and Mark in case they could clarify historic details, or were otherwise curious about/interested in the proposal. Joseph stated opposition there (within WG14), and Keith Bostic suggested that I could change the manual pages to document <memory.h>, and use that to influence the public, in order to get to step 2. (The exact wording may differ.) Indeed, I thought it was a great idea, as <memory.h> is just as portable to POSIX-ish systems as <string.h> (except for gnulib and Illumos gate, gnulib is CCd, so hopefully they address this portability issue). > > 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. Thanks for the support! :) Have a lovely night! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
