This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH v9 2/6] Implement alternative month names (bug 10871).
- From: Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 00:08:58 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v9 2/6] Implement alternative month names (bug 10871).
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <742475879.1094767.1505817734249@poczta.nazwa.pl> <CAKCAbMhaqZJnunsVgsUrcg5=GjRJ6Oyh2kWLJjpUBgZxpTmoNg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710271653050.6867@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAKCAbMifACoyio5pGRThq7HpvnQp5zhY+g1KCqSgFtd=Q3=71w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710271717520.6867@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAKCAbMhnhG-PJnnEX6ZU62ZehqefBdvp3qtaFexWYxPerzKWzA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710271923460.13283@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAKCAbMirJFK3Fst_1iwOemdhsjCXkTmsjY-+=6j=7nU9fd9Wcg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710272028310.13283@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAKCAbMjA10b4sbbrmtz0+fRSeTuoXTsFyc8_u9ReaY91JTvo-Q@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>
27.10.2017 22:36 Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> I have filed http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1166 .
> >
> > I note that includes ABALTMON_* constants in langinfo.h, whereas the
> > present patch series has ALTMON_* constants but no ABALTMON_* names.
>
> Rafal's patches have _NL_ABALTMON_*. I am not clear on when we
> actually want _NL_ prefixes on those constants, but I figured it was
> simpler to write the proposal with no prefixes and the Austin Group
> can add them if they want them.
If I understand correctly, _NL_* prefixes are used for our own extensions
while the constants without the prefixes are standardized by POSIX.
I can't define ABALTMON_* constants before POSIX accepts and publishes
the change. Should I define them now when the issue is filed? Can
I assume that if the change is filed it will be eventually accepted
just because it looks reasonable for us? I don't think so. It may take
multiple years. How should we prepare for the potential change in the
distant future? Is it OK to leave it as it is now and assume that
ABALTMON_* symbols will be defined (as aliases) when they are needed?
Regards,
Rafal