On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:43:25PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Using the implementation namespace, or a separate header file are just two
> > commonly used solutions for this kind of thing with less impact.
>
> requested that the NetBSD namespace is present. Like I said,
> rxvt-unicode doesn't request a pure SUS/POSIX namespace, so complaining
> about extensions is wrong.
And why xactly can't I complain about needlessly breaking apps? It is only
netbsd who does it, everybody else does it in a compatible way.
Basically, the onl reaosn I cannot complain is because netbsd is somehow a
sacred cow that can break stuff at will and then asks others to fix it up.
Your claims that this incompatibility exists elsewhere is simply false.
> > Besides, it's a common function why? Because only netbsd has it? If that
> > were true, why does it not cause problems elsewhere? Maybe because it
> > isn't so common or others didn't choose the same invasive approach?
>
> It is a common function because many algorithms use it. Heck, it is even
> an instruction in many ISAs.
Bullshit, the instruction is usually called something else (like "popcnt").
Note that no problem would have occured if you had used a different name
(like, one from the implementation namespace which is there for a reason).
So saying many ISAs have it is just bullshit - this issue is about naming
clashes, and popcount simply is NOT a common function.
> > I have no problem with working around this problem on netbsd. bsd header
> > file and code quality *is* well known to be abysmal (with netbsd being
>
> So far only one person has shown a remarkable amount of arrogance in the
> mails I have received. I will not comment on the rest, it would mirror
> behavior I detest too much.
Sorry, but ignoring my arguments, ad-hominem attacks like calling my
behaviour "bitching", and telling me that I somehow don't have the right to
complain is arrogance.
So there is at least one perosn who is arrogant, that's you. I also found
roys attitude of insisting it needs fixing in urxvt rather arrogant. And
while my reply might have been arrogant, keep in mind that I didn't start
it.
> > But netbsd claiming that this is something that needs fixing in urxvt
> > without acknowledging that it's a problem that netbsd at least could have
> > avoided is unbelievably arrogant.
>
> You are repeating yourself. It doesn't get better.
Maybe you should read your e-mails and understand them first without
resorting to needless abuse. The fact that I even have to repeat it is
sad, but you apaprently just don't get it.
So, slowly, that you might hopefully understand it this time: netbsd came
and claimed urxvt needs fixing because they and only they spilled the
program namespace with a new symbol. I remarked that other implementations
solve this problem much more elegantly without gratitious breaking of apps
(and this has been known long before netbsd implemented it).
The result simply was a pile of arrogance, bullshit arguments (joerg,
we are talking about namespace issues here - telling me that some isas
implement the algorithm in hardware has *zero* relevance and is pure
bullshitting) and (slight) abuse.
You basically asked for it, don't complain about my reaction when you
treated me likewise first. It's just, how did you say.. "off".
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected]
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
rxvt-unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
