On 3/28/2012 12:49 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Charles Pritchard<[email protected]> wrote:
It does seem like a bigger "warning" in the spec may benefit developers.
A warning and an example of how to check for big-endian results.
Asking developers to write extra code paths for users that don't exist is
futile. Even if you could persuade them to do it, since there's no way to
test those code paths, most of them will get it wrong.
Rob
We've covered this ground.
I consider your position one of benevolent paternalism. You are free to
stick with it, and to apply it in your patch submissions.
I've no desire to coddle low-level coders. They know what they're
getting into.
-Charles
