From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: meillo@marmaro.de (markus schnalke) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:06:18 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory? In-Reply-To: References: <201509130032.t8D0WvPl024634@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <20150913011501.GF2103@mcvoy.com> <1Zb1NA-5he-00@marmaro.de> Message-ID: <1Zb56w-7Ty-00@marmaro.de> [2015-09-13 20:32] Dave Horsfall > On Sun, 13 Sep 2015, markus schnalke wrote: > > > > void *alloc(size_t bytes); > > > void *realloc(void *old, size_t want); > > > > > > void *zalloc(size_t bytes); > > > void *zealloc(void *old, size_t want); > > > > Please note, that identifiers are usually remembered by sound not by > > letter sequence. `zalloc' and `zealloc' are likely to be pronounced > > similar and thus there is a good chance that this leads to confusion and > > errors. Furthermore, `calloc' and `zalloc' are prone to be pronounced > > equally or understood equally, especially by non-native speakers. > > That, of course, depends upon how you pronounce "z". In this part of the > world, it's "zed". No confusion with "see" here down-under... So, if these function will never be available to American English speaking folks, then I'm all fine with the names. ;-) meillo