3 ms·
It's not a header file, it's just a header, strictly speaking: the standard explicitly allows it to not be an actual file, and indeed there are implementations
by Joker_vD 4mo ago
It's not a header file, it's just a header, strictly speaking: the standard explicitly allows it to not be an actual file, and indeed there are implementations that don't have standard headers available as actual on-disk files. And, also strictly speaking, it should be <string.h>. You know, if we're being pedantic.
- parasti 4mo agoMy point isn't about that, though. My point is if you start a blog post with "The C string library", my confidence in your ability to discuss the topic is shot before I even finish reading the sentence.
- Joker_vD 4mo agoAnd my point is that if you start nitpicking a perfectly understandable (if slightly imprecise) and widely-used terminology, you better not open yourself to the self-same criticism lest people would justifiably ignore your opinion. After all, what C has is "the C library". It's what standard literally calls it (it doesn't even explicitly provide for existence of other kinds of libraries) but everyone calls it "the standard library". Is it correct? Arguably, no.
- parasti 4mo agoYou're still falling back on "what the standard says". It's not a correctness question.
- Joker_vD 4mo agoSo you merely discard others' opinions merely on the fact of them using speech patterns that are not even incorrect, you just personally dislike them? Okay, that's fine, I guess, although you initially explicitly framed it as a correctness problem: "There is no "C string library".