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

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:18:11PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20051217030513.A82342_at_xorpc.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes:
...
> >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.
> 
> Everything under the sun has a portability cost these days because
> the portable subset of the UNIX API is still too small to support
> sensible programming.
...
> For an extensible printf, I see little reason to add yet another
> API, the GLIBC people got here first, the API is not optimal, but
> it does work.

so let me understand - perhaps i am missing this point.

are you saying that if you link a program that uses these extensions
with glibc it behaves as expected ?  Then the portability issue
would disappear (i.e. moves elsewhere where hopefully it has been
solved already).

cheers
luigi