using standard interfaces
Richard Harter
g-rh at cca.CCA.COM
Fri Sep 16 17:22:52 AEST 1988
In article <7076 at bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> scs at adam.pika.mit.edu (Steve Summit) writes:
>The reason we keep pointing out the existence of standard
>functions to those who would rather (or have to) roll their own
>is to encourage people to start using the standard interface, by
>writing their own function with the same name and parameters,
>rather than sticking special-purpose code in-line, or inventing
>some new name. This way the program can take advantage of
>standardized, optimized implementations when they become
>available (for instance when the program is ported to a different
>system which has them).
This sounds good, but there is a problem to take into account. If
you have your own routine with the same name as the "standard"
routine there is the potential for problems when you port into
a system that has the "standard" routine in its library. The
problem is that the library implementers may use said routine
internally in the library in a way that conflicts with your routine.
For example, it is quite unsafe to roll your own storage allocator
and call it malloc.
--
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list