[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf Recommendations for Policy Language Implementation
ray byler>I would like to make some recommendations for the
ray byler>policy language.
ray byler>1. Nested comments should be allowed.
i think this is fine
ray byler>2. Our implementation of sprintf(), unlike the C
ray byler> version, should make sure that the number of
ray byler> format specifiers in the format string matches
ray byler> the number of corresponding arguments. Our version
ray byler> of sprintf(), unlike the C version (which is call
ray byler> by value), should be call by reference (to match the rest of
ray byler> the policy language).
ray byler>3. The order of evaluation of arguments to function calls
ray byler> should be right-to-left. This is unspecified in C.
ray byler> Right-to-left matches the gcc and Turbo C implementations.
ray byler> The following test program demonstrates how different
ray byler> compilers evaluate arguments.
i think that both of are fine ... however, could we call it policysprintf() or
some such thing ?
i don't have strong allegiance to any particular name ... confusion avoidance
is the goal -- to make it clear that it is not exactly like sprintf()
please note that we are already enough different to require a name
change, whether or not we follow these 3 recommendations
ray knows i have a strong personal rule prohibiting changing arguments and/or
semantics of a function without renaming the function
my $0.02 worth