From beh@peren.com Thu Feb 26 19:52:00 2004 Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net (turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.126]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i1QIpo1S078069 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:51:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from beh@peren.com) Received: from h-68-164-81-187.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.164.81.187] helo=BRONCO) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AwQcI-0007U8-00 for embedded-c@dkuug.dk; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:52:14 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Barry E. Hedquist" To: "Embedded-C" Subject: RE: (embedded-c.188) TR 18037 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:52:40 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200402261620.i1QGKMNA074709@dkuug.dk> X-Spam-Score: 0 () > Solutions? Don't know yet. > Possible options: > - leave as is; this would imply that string.h and stdfix.h cannot > be used simultaneously. I don't think that's acceptable. > - change the 'k' back to 'q'; a rather big change but, if done > quickly, would not hurt too many implementations ... Process-wise, probably the easiest. > - invent a new name for this specific case ('strtokk'?): not nice > but simple to do. I think this creates more confusion with 'strtok' > My favourite is to remove 7.21.5.8 from the standard (who would > use this anyway?) but I don't think that this is a real option. Agree that's it's not a real option. It would amount to a substantive change - outside the scope of a DR. > Suggestions? The quicker we react, the less damage is done ... My initial suggestion is to go back to strtoq, however I think we need to review why we changed 'q' to 'k' to begin with. Barry