Hi Branden,

> Date: 2026-08-02 18:10:58-0500
> From: "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>
>
> At 2026-08-03T01:08:32+0200, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> > Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
> > > Most programmers can live in the safe bubble of <string.h>: those
> > > functions always require a string as input, and always provide a
> > > string as output.  Plain and simple.  It's difficult to write bugs
> > > when using those.
> > >
> > > That's the rationale.
> > 
> > I do not follow.
> > 
> > C has no namespaces, let alone qualified imports.
> 
> That's true.
> 
> > The name of a header providing some function is thus inconsequential.
> 
> Then why not have one official big header file for the whole standard?
> 
> #include <stdlibc.h>

Heh, curious thing: Plan9 did exactly this (actually, two headers).  :)

	#include <u.h>
	#include <libc.h>

Not that I support that idea, of course.

> 
> When you answer that to your own satisfaction, I suspect you'll have
> little trouble following Alex's argument.

Indeed.  Thanks!  You've replied in less words than I would have, and
were more clear than I would have been.

> ...which doesn't mean you'll agree with it.
> 
> Regards,
> Branden


Have a lovely night!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>