Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 21:50:12 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] importing e* (embolic, estrdup, etc) functions from NetBSD (libc/libutil or libnetbsd)? Message-ID: <94056.1445291412@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <20151019212750.GB64504@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <74F6DD3C-42F6-490B-A08E-245A1338A3E7@gmail.com> <CAPyFy2AuDPL4qgawfaRhyWA1dp=29VfFBAdi06ygZ2UABB=D3Q@mail.gmail.com> <20151019212750.GB64504@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- In message <20151019212750.GB64504@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>, Brooks Dav= is writes: >This feels like the right approach to me as well. I looked at it at one point and I found it seriously lacking. The philosophy seems to be "just stick 'e' in front and you're done" but in practice that is not even close. The *real* problem they're trying to solve is safe string handling, and the e* functions only cover a small corner area of that space. Their implemenation also seems half-hearted in many ways. For instance they have not specified what happens if the error handler returns to the e* function. And finally, C-with-exceptions ? Really ? I far prefer sbuf(3) to e*(3) -- = Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe = Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence= .
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?94056.1445291412>