Re: Is there g_write function?

["David Necas (Yeti)" <yeti physics muni cz>]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:07:19PM -0400, Freddie Unpenstein wrote:
> I must say, I wouldn't mind some of the more common functions being wrapped (if it can be done without 
> excessive overhead).

I would call that bloat even if it was done with

  #define g_write write

You'd soon end up with

  #define g_COMPLETE_ISO_C_AND_POSIX_API COMPLETE_ISO_C_AND_POSIX_API

because it's equally `confusing' to mix strchr() with
g_strlcpy(), etc.

> If you have to include the original standard header as well, then you end up with both sets and can (I do 
> from time to time) find yourself accidentally mixing the original functions with their enhanced glib 
> equivelants.

The rule is simple: functions that operate on file names are
wrapped.

Yeti


--
That's enough.