Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:13:11 +0900 From: Shigio Yamaguchi <shigio@wafu.netgate.net> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: shigio@wafu.netgate.net, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] path converting functions. Message-ID: <199712110115.BAA10321@wafu.netgate.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199712110527.VAA24691@austin.polstra.com>,
John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> wrote:
> Well, in my opinion the example set by realpath(3) is bad and it
> shouldn't be copied in new code. I say again, if a function writes
> into a caller-supplied buffer then the caller should also specify
> how large the buffer is. Using a compiled in assumption such as
> MAXPATHLEN is risky at best. What if you build your program on one
> machine and then run it on a machine where MAXPATHLEN has a different
> value? Or, for that matter, on the same machine after some wiz has
> decided to change the value of MAXPATHLEN?
You are right.
It seems your style is better and I understood getcwd(3) which is
the new interface of getwd(3) uses your style.
I'll change the interface like this.
SYNOPSIS
#include <sys/param.h>
char *
abs2rel(const char *path, const char *base, char result[MAXPATHLEN])
|
v
SYNOPSIS
char *
abs2rel(const char *path, const char *base, char *result, size_t size)
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
buffer address, buffer size
>
> Anyway, that's all the arguing I want to do. You asked for opinions
> and I gave you mine. :-)
It's precious to me. Thank you. :)
--
Shigio Yamaguchi (Freelance programmer)
Mail: shigio@wafu.netgate.net, WWW: http://wafu.netgate.net/tama/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712110115.BAA10321>