Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Jim Nasby wrote:
>> The truth is, virtually no one, even highly technical people, ever
>> picks nits between kB vs KiB vs KB.
>
> The question isn't so much whether to allow KiB and such -- that would
> obviously be trivial. The question is whether we want to have kB mean
> 1000 bytes instead of 1024 bytes.
Would it satisfy everyone if the documentation states that
specifying a value of "N kB" means that "*at least* N 1000 bytes"
are allocated; and perhaps even documenting that in the current
implementation it happens to be 24 extra bytes.
> In my mind, that goes against current practice. The only argument
> raised in favor was that international standards require such use. I'm
> as much a fan of measurement standards as anyone, but I'm also a
> practitioner of current practice.
With the spec reading "at least N KB", even the most pedantic
spec reader can't complain, because it is true.