[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <zul5YrryV9wl-XSvDCXKTRX44Mi2brGHpe5pBbgSiPDtuz1hh9dDS9q97cMxSIEXYDveuLU1tDA9jQw8Kjw3S4knDSMUVJMcEHmiUqtafW4=@proton.me>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 04:43:17 +0000
From: Oliver Webb <aquahobbyist@...ton.me>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] POSIX 2024: strptime %F
I think I have discovered a way to implement strptime %s, %U, etc, with function pointers
to call back to code after numeric_range is done (i.e "if (after) after(*dest, tm)" at the
end of the numeric_range code with "after" being a function pointer set in a case statement).
This, however, would add a fair amount of complexity to the code (multiple static functions
in src/time/strptime.c). I can implement it without much trouble. But I wanna know if this
complexity is considered worth it before I put effort into implementing/testing it.
Maybe there's a alternative way to do it without duplicating code or splitting functions?
- Oliver Webb aquahobbyist@...ton.me
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
