From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <867abf0eaf4f7777b25c1b5e2b615bc1@plan9.escet.urjc.es> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] same functions everywhere From: Fco.J.Ballesteros In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-fakvwzbakrnekxzhkhhutjinvb" Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:32:42 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 977a2f68-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-fakvwzbakrnekxzhkhhutjinvb Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit An intermediate way would be to add another library with common tools like those ones. But maybe we end up with too many libraries then... --upas-fakvwzbakrnekxzhkhhutjinvb Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by aquamar; Wed Apr 23 17:30:25 MDT 2003 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 6BFE419B70; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from sargazos.escet.urjc.es (sargazos.escet.urjc.es [212.128.4.206]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 82E2419A82 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:29:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] same functions everywhere From: paurea@plan9.escet.urjc.es In-Reply-To: <249de27d2581f3a562d4e3cb3a52d0a8@plan9.bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:29:08 +0200 > The problem is that if they are in the library > then it encourages other libraries to use > them, and then we end up with a C library > in which it is impossible to correctly handle > an out-of-memory error. I see the point, but can't swallow they have to be reimplemented so many times. > > The decision to abort is best left up to the > application. I agree that the decision is best left up to the application, but having to rewrite or copy the implementation of the funtcions everywhere shouldn't be necessary. I feel this is not the Right thing to do. The only alternatives I can think of are ugly patches, so if you have any idea... Gorka ゴルカ --upas-fakvwzbakrnekxzhkhhutjinvb--