The `locale_t' API

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The `locale_t' API

Ludovic Courtès
Hi,

The `locale_t' API is a great thing.  However, is there any reason for
not documenting it (as a GNU extension) in the manual?  IOW, can it be
considered a ``stable'' GNU extension?

Also, does anyone know whether a similar API is being considered for
future standards (e.g., ISO or X/Open) or is actually implemented by
other Unices?

Thanks,
Ludovic.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The `locale_t' API

Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:15:05AM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote:
> The `locale_t' API is a great thing.  However, is there any reason for
> not documenting it (as a GNU extension) in the manual?  IOW, can it be
> considered a ``stable'' GNU extension?

FYI this is ATM documented in
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/tllocale.ps.gz
If you want it documented in the libc manual, we are certainly
accepting patches... ;)

        Jakub
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The `locale_t' API

Ludovic Courtès
Hi,

Jakub Jelinek <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:15:05AM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote:
>> The `locale_t' API is a great thing.  However, is there any reason for
>> not documenting it (as a GNU extension) in the manual?  IOW, can it be
>> considered a ``stable'' GNU extension?
>
> FYI this is ATM documented in
> http://people.redhat.com/drepper/tllocale.ps.gz
> If you want it documented in the libc manual, we are certainly
> accepting patches... ;)

Thanks for the pointer.

Getting back to my original question, I assume that your answer can be
interpreted as "yes, it is a stable API, and it is only undocumented in
the manual due to lack of time/contributions".  Is this correct?

Thanks,
Ludovic.