On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Jason Lunz wrote:
I'm positive to renaming the callv() function, though. One obvious name would be "calll", but that's quite ugly. How about "lcall"? Then we can keep the "callv" name for backwards compatibility.
How recently was callv added? I'd prefer not to have a callv at all than to have a call/callv pair that don't map naturally to execl/execv.
callv has been around even longer than call actually, although callv was earlier called "run".
Or, we could just keep the "callv" name, and pretend that "v" stands for "variable number of arguments".
I really don't want to do this. I can tell already I'll be forever forgetting which one I need, and probably anyone else with C/unix experience will be in the same boat. It's the kind of irritant I'd like to wipe out now while there's still the opportunity.
I don't have a very strong opinion about callv, so if the general opinion wants to remove it, that's OK with me. /Peter Åstrand <astrand@lysator.liu.se>