Re: Mentioning strtonum(3) in style(9)

[Andre Nathan <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004, Matthew Dillon wrote:

>     I don't really like strtonum(), actually.  It makes the mistake of
>     trying to integrate a number of things into a single function call
>     that really ought to be more explicitly checked after the call returns.

Hmm. Are there situations where the checks required by strtol() and
friends are needed to be done explicitly by the programmer, instead of a
wrapper function?

Anyway, I've sent some patches for bad function substitution recently
which I believe weren't reviewed yet. Should I redo them without
changing the string-to-number functions then?

Andre