Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:55:15 +0100 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: mike@smith.net.au Cc: dcs@newsguy.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BootFORTH - demo floppy Message-ID: <13310.914230515@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:49:05 -0800" References: <199812210849.AAA50785@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I'm not sure what do you mean with the first question. As for the second > > question... sure. Forth string operators are all count based. The null will > > not appear on the end of the string unless you put it there yourself. > > We don't like counted strings. They suck for innumerable reasons, and > if the only reason for having them there is "tradition" (ie. there is > no reason *not* to take them away) then they can damn well die. 8) Given the many buffer overflows that have been found in various Unix applications through the years, and the recent cleanup of string handling in the kernel, maybe this view should be reexamined? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13310.914230515>