On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Jason Lunz wrote: > > I'm positive to renaming the callv() function, though. One obvious > > name would be "calll", but that's quite ugly. How about "lcall"? Then > > we can keep the "callv" name for backwards compatibility. > > How recently was callv added? I'd prefer not to have a callv at all than > to have a call/callv pair that don't map naturally to execl/execv. callv has been around even longer than call actually, although callv was earlier called "run". > > Or, we could just keep the "callv" name, and pretend that "v" stands for > > "variable number of arguments". > > I really don't want to do this. I can tell already I'll be forever > forgetting which one I need, and probably anyone else with C/unix > experience will be in the same boat. It's the kind of irritant I'd like > to wipe out now while there's still the opportunity. I don't have a very strong opinion about callv, so if the general opinion wants to remove it, that's OK with me. /Peter Åstrand <astrand at lysator.liu.se>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4