[avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] Poll: Who uses itoa() & co with base != {2, 8, 10, 16}?

[Bernard Fouché]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:

> While itoa() is not really standardized in any way (at least not for
> C, I'm not sure for C++), it is commonly implemented with a possible
> base of [2..36], so changing that would constitute an API change.
>
> Opinions?
>
>  
IMHO if there an API change, then the function name must change also. 
That could be a very tricky thing to debug, one never knows how someone 
else may use itoa() for weird base conversion. I get mad when I run in a 
problem because someone thought that 'it would be better that way' but I 
was not made aware of the change. In French we say "L'enfer est pavé de 
bonnes intentions". (The hell is paved good intentions (google 
translation?))

I vote for something like itoa_fast() and have itoa() keeps its old 
features.

 Bernard