View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001943 | 1003.1(2024)/Issue8 | System Interfaces | public | 2025-09-01 13:03 | 2025-09-11 16:21 |
| Reporter | steffen | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | low | Severity | Comment | Type | Clarification Requested |
| Status | Resolved | Resolution | Accepted As Marked | ||
| Name | Your Name Here | ||||
| Organization | |||||
| User Reference | |||||
| Section | ftell | ||||
| Page Number | 1066 | ||||
| Line Number | 36587 | ||||
| Interp Status | --- | ||||
| Final Accepted Text | 0001943:0007254 | ||||
| Summary | 0001943: Usage of "multibyte" vs "multi-byte" in the standard text | ||||
| Description | The standard talks about the "Multibyte extension", but otherwise always uses the term "multi-byte". Except for ftell()/ftello(), where "multibyte representation" is used. Remarsks: for context, in the Unix manual page world these terms are used intermixed practically all over the place (especially GNU/Linux; BSD*s mostly go "multibyte"). | ||||
| Desired Action | If uniformity is desired, the single "multibyte" in the RATIONALE of ftell()/ftello() should be changed to "multi-byte". | ||||
| Tags | tc1-2024 | ||||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-01 13:03 | steffen | New Issue | |
| 2025-09-11 16:20 | geoffclare | Note Added: 0007254 | |
| 2025-09-11 16:21 | geoffclare | Status | New => Resolved |
| 2025-09-11 16:21 | geoffclare | Resolution | Open => Accepted As Marked |
| 2025-09-11 16:21 | geoffclare | Interp Status | => --- |
| 2025-09-11 16:21 | geoffclare | Final Accepted Text | => 0001943:0007254 |
| 2025-09-11 16:21 | geoffclare | Tag Attached: tc1-2024 |
