Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add strtoimax() compatibility function.

On 6 Sep 2011, Junio C. Hamano spake thusly:

Nix [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Since systems that omit strtoumax() will likely omit strtomax() too,
and likewise for strtoull() and strtoll(), we also adjust the
compatibility #defines from NO_STRTOUMAX to NO_STRTOMAX and from
NO_STRTOULL to NO_STRTOLL, and have them cover both the signed and
unsigned functions.

What would happen to people who know their systems lack strtoumax and have
happily using NO_STRTOUMAX in their config.mak already? Do their build
suddenly start breaking after this patch is applied and they all have to
adjust to the new name?

Uh. Yeah. Oops.

Even though "no strtoumax() likely means no strtoimax()" may be a good
heuristics, I am not sure what we would gain by renaming these Makefile
variables. Can't you get the same effect by making existing NO_STRTOUMAX
imply not having strtoimax(), and if you did so, wouldn't it be much less
likely that you would break existing people's build?

Yes, but I thought that might be too confusing (and having four
variables for this one case seemed ridiculous). I'm happy to rename it
back.

-- 
NULL && (void)