Re: portability of isblank?

[Paul Eggert]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> Is isblank portable?

Not universally, no.

> And if not, should we have a public gnulib header that provides it,
> rather than regex_internal.h?

For isblank, it's so simple that one wonders whether it's worth the
effort of gnulibizing it.  But if we're going to do it, I'd rather
have gnulib redefine ctype.h than to have an isblank.h.  (I think this
about a lot of the other little gnulib headers, too....)