From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C55A433ADA7 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.183 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785595943; cv=none; b=Xrqw/NQUTZ7YWl9QKBmrp2/zfSo2aP3BEA/rgYmNXsXSu2sA6WHPw1FgGVkFmA/50ir4CcDU+0e/hNq52v682xSSWIQn7KgcrG8QfWh8AMBa+WPBHS2XAP54I5w/k38uEsTFpwxjcPYiqD9mCm+/dGE9juJV6XAKB5rFaOrGi6Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785595943; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KEQQXLaek/T/4pGQvDbx/XX4dpjqJuW+rA4hO9TkAx0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bNmZEDEbueYdSBH+4bmtEgS/JkH5QoDvBWxlJv5KcWMt9H48ZKa77wpTXIY4GCYYelKCO2CwOUfAgtKnA90LMlR5toNFddd0/pnnRK1ybZMk42PgTKC0XJS1sQgC5l89twTSC157nF4rJB1wQs0RNU1pK71jP43rujYlgbQlMKQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.183 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org Received: from mop.sam.mop (c.1.a.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.a.5.c.d.c.d.9.1.0.b.8.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa [IPv6:2001:8b0:19dc:dc5a::a1c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: sam) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1636341EB9; Sat, 01 Aug 2026 14:52:18 +0000 (UTC) From: Sam James To: "G. Branden Robinson" Cc: Joseph Myers , Alejandro Colomar , linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Keith Bostic , Mark Harris , Nevin Liber , JeanHeyd Meneide , Christopher Bazley , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Iker Pedrosa , "Evgeny Grin (Karlson2k)" , Kees Cook , bug-gnulib@gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: on the irresponsibility of pursuing C language reform In-Reply-To: <20260731222417.4fo36is3iawyc7d4@illithid> Organization: Gentoo References: <784288e704183a4297aeaa3d13af8edab18bc1ea.1785532392.git.alx@kernel.org> <20260731215122.4p4aepsbgeoibx74@illithid> <87a4r6es6k.fsf@gentoo.org> <20260731222417.4fo36is3iawyc7d4@illithid> User-Agent: mu4e 1.14.2; emacs 31.0.91 Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 15:52:13 +0100 Message-ID: <87h5lddhb6.fsf@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-man@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "G. Branden Robinson" writes: > Hi Sam, Hi Branden, > > At 2026-07-31T22:59:47+0100, Sam James wrote: >> "G. Branden Robinson" writes: >> > At 2026-07-31T21:23:35+0000, Joseph Myers wrote: >> >> I think it's irresponsible to use the man-pages project to promote >> >> personal idiosyncratic ideas like this in preference to what's been >> >> the standard location of functions since 1989. >> > >> > I'm sure I don't need to bring to your attention what a mine field >> > string/`char` sequence/memory buffer handling has been in C since the >> > language's inception. >> > >> > More to the point: what's a better forum for pursuing this attempt at >> > reform that will both (a) reach a significant population of stakeholde= rs >> > who can variously red-team it and/or endorse it; and (b) has sufficient >> > visibility that it can't easily be ignored by people who oppose reform >> > in this area for whatever reason? >>=20 >> I think the man page already tries to discourage use in its CAVEATS >> section. > > Yes, but that's not a language reform, which is what Alex is pursuing > with "alx-0097r1". In at least one earlier iteration he's expressed his > intention to submit an N document to WG14. > >> > I hope you do not wish to imply that a closed session of some >> > committee, or unofficial backroom politicking would be preferable, >> > nor that WG14 should close its doors to members of its user >> > community who have not been vetted for a disinclination to >> > boat-rocking. >>=20 >> I am confused as to where that implication could have possibly come >> from. > > From familiarity with Alex's stated objective and rationale, which we > can acquire from the recent list traffic Joseph characterized as > irresponsible. Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. To clarify then: I have no issue with Alex advocating changes. I just have an issue with man-pages being used regularly as a vehicle for that. > > AC> The C Committee is discussing standardization of , so > AC> let's give it a bump. > > AC> I'll send you a copy of a paper I'm writing for the C Committee. > > AC> It is at the bottom of this email. I will publish it as an N > AC> document in August. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/784288e704183a4297aeaa3d13af8edab18bc1e= a.1785532392.git.alx@kernel.org/ > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/amaTpQxd52iYjlor@devuan/ > >> Joseph is opposing the change in the form of a patch that is >> likely to be applied (*) to man-pages.git which has the effect of >> advocacy. > > Yes, and he said so categorically. More constructive advice might have > taken the form of recommending a sequencing for staged changes. Here's > a crude sketch. > I agree this is more productive, thanks for setting it out. > 1. Expand "CAVEATS" sections in relevant Linux man-pages documents. > 2. Pursue N-document work with WG14. > 3. When WG14 has disposed of that N-document (and any descendants > thereof), update Linux man-pages documents as appropriate. > > Joseph's almost certainly better placed than I to add a "step 1.5" > such that Alex might pursue some course that would better prepare the > ground for his step 2. I haven't attempted revision of the C language > standard myself, so I can't offer specific advice regarding how best to > pursue such an objective. I possess only notions of elemental > principles regarding how democratic, consultative bodies of technical > experts _should_ serve the public. > > That _is_ what we're here for, right? > >> I don't think it has anything to do with WG14 membership or anything >> of the like? What am I missing? > > See above regarding Alex's publicly circulated drafts and expressed > plans. What I mean is that I didn't take Joseph's comments to be an objection to Alex's WG14 membership or anything of the sort, just that man-pages isn't an appropriate vehicle for it. In any case, that's my position even if I misunderstood Joseph's. > >> (*) Alex has a history of making opinonated changes like this to >> man-pages, such as removing references to older standards, and >> using a somewhat novel (to many) syntax for prototypes. > > I concur with that assessment. However, a person having a history of > making opinionated changes is not sound grounds for evaluation of a > technical proposal, especially if it's topically unrelated. > > Preoccupying oneself with irrelevancies distracts from the conscientious > execution of standards committee participation. > Thanks for your thoughtful email. I found it helpful! > Regards, > Branden sam --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEBBAEWCgCpFiEEJaa7iN2bdkxrVUHCc4QJ9SDfkZAFAmpuCB0bFIAAAAAABAAO bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25z Lm9wZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQyNUE2QkI4OEREOUI3NjRDNkI1NTQx QzI3Mzg0MDlGNTIwREY5MTkwDxxzYW1AZ2VudG9vLm9yZwAKCRBzhAn1IN+RkDGt AQD1ZDfWlaEV3ladwzJQRlwgU6Lzt9Wz1TK871+xNpwtGAD/cyfBoif2DEvXxOH+ avBDoOPdm8O5Zel6wsffZ5mNKwM= =B5cS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--