Matthieu Brucher wrote: > > > I don't what he meant by a broken libc, if it is the fact that there > > is a lot of deprecated standard functions, I don't call it broken > > (besides, this deprecation follows a technical paper that > describe the > > new safe functions, although it does not deprecate these functions). > If unilaterally deprecating standard functions which exist for > years is > not broken, I really wonder what is :) > > > They are deprecated (although a simple flag can get rid of those > deprecation) not removed. deprecated means that they will disappear soon, and (worse), people will chose to use the non deprecated, hence programming non portable code (those functions are neither portable or standard; different OS have different implementation). > Besides, the deprecated functions are in fact functions that can lead > to security issues This is far from obvious. Actually, numerous people (who I trust more than MS) have raised their concern on those functions: they add complexity for no obvious advantage.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1106.txt cheers, Ddavid _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
