On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 07:23:31PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Do we really need to rename and poison anything? qsort () in the source is
> > something that is most obvious to developers, so trying to force them to use
> > something different will just mean extra thing to learn.
>
> Yep, I'd prefer to have a solution that keeps C-style qsort invocations as-is.
>
> Note that with vec::qsort -> vec::sort renaming (which should be less
> controversial, STL also has std::vector<T>::sort), the argument counting
vec::qsort -> vec::sort renaming is fine with me.
Jakub
