Am 11.08.20 um 02:52 schrieb Theo de Raadt:
> But no, WG14 are the lords and masters in the high castle, and now 6
> years after the ship sailed something Must Be Done, it must look like
> They Solved The Problem, and so they'll create an incompatible API.
> Will they be heroes?  No, not really.  Changing the name is villainous.

The purpose of WG14 is to codify existing practise, not to invent (see
N2086, 8. and

WG14 has reserved some identifiers for future extensions of the
standard. E.g. those starting with mem_. Naturally, others then choose
identifiers that do not conflict with this, such as explicit_bzero. But
if that name is then used in the standard unchanged, it would mean that
future extensions only use exactly those identifiers not reserved for
future extensions.


Reply via email to