Re: About extensible prinf(3), a slightly long X-mas card

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:34:59AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20051217102835.GC33190_at_uk.tiscali.com>, Brian Candler writes:
> 
> >Perhaps the semantics of this extended printf() are so far divorced from the
> >standard one that you might as well just call it something else? e.g.
> >
> >    ext_printf()
> 
> the reasons not to are
> 
> 	ext_printf()
> 	ext_fprintf()
> 	ext_sprintf()
> 	ext_snprintf()
> 	ext_asprintf()
> 	ext_vprintf()
> 	ext_vfprintf()
> 	ext_vsfprintf()
> 	ext_vasfprintf()
> 
> There is little or no point in replicating all of this stuff.

phk, i don't understand your objection.
aren't (or shouldn't) all of these written as wrappers
for a generic ext_*printf() ?

or your objection is not on the number of different interfaces to
the same thing, but rather the fact that by calling it printf you
can use the existing GLIBC glue to register extensions etc ?

I love the idea of extensible printf, and it's way way useful
when handling ip addresses, hexdump and whatnot; but
portability is an issue, and nobody would use it if
the source code doesn't port to other systems.

cheers
luigi