- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:59:56 -0700
On 3/28/2012 12:49 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Charles Pritchard<chuck at jumis.com> wrote: > >> It does seem like a bigger "warning" in the spec may benefit developers. >> A warning and an example of how to check for big-endian results. >> > Asking developers to write extra code paths for users that don't exist is > futile. Even if you could persuade them to do it, since there's no way to > test those code paths, most of them will get it wrong. > > Rob We've covered this ground. I consider your position one of benevolent paternalism. You are free to stick with it, and to apply it in your patch submissions. I've no desire to coddle low-level coders. They know what they're getting into. -Charles
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 00:59:56 UTC