[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:43:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5 |
Derek Robert Price wrote:
> Now that you point it out however, I think I may make maxing the
> allocation an error here to avoid even a chance of attempting a username
> and password that were not intentionally presented as such.
Yes, seems wise to me.
And when all you getnline calls are handled like this:
if (getnline (...) < 0) error(1, 0, ...);
then the semantic difference between our two approaches is not important
any more.
> I don't think this is strictly a matter of taste. The pattern has
> already been established in the previous functions:
>
> extern ssize_t getline (char **_lineptr, size_t *_linesize, FILE *_stream);
>
> extern ssize_t getdelim (char **_lineptr, size_t *_linesize, int
> _delimiter, FILE *_stream);
>
> extern ssize_t getnline (char **lineptr, size_t *linesize, size_t nmax,
> FILE *stream);
>
> extern ssize_t getndelim (char **lineptr, size_t *linesize, size_t nmax,
> int delimiter, FILE *stream);
>
>
> Note that the FILE * keeps being pushed out by new arguments. The same
> goes for the delimiter arguments relative to the size_t nmax (which
> should be limit) argument. In contrast, getndelim2 suddenly reshuffles
> all the arguments:
>
> extern ssize_t getndelim2 (char **lineptr, size_t *linesize, size_t nmax,
> FILE *stream, int delim1, int delim2,
> size_t offset);
>
>
> I am arguing in favor of consistency to make the function more easily
> accessible to humans who are familiar with its sister functions. I also
> think that the grouping of related arguments make the function API more
> accessible to humans.
I'm neutral on this. What do the others think? Jim, Paul?
Bruno
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, (continued)
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Bruno Haible, 2003/07/18
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Derek Robert Price, 2003/07/18
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Bruno Haible, 2003/07/24
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Derek Robert Price, 2003/07/24
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Bruno Haible, 2003/07/24
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Derek Robert Price, 2003/07/25
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Jim Meyering, 2003/07/28
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Derek Robert Price, 2003/07/31
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Bruno Haible, 2003/07/31
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Derek Robert Price, 2003/07/31
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Derek Robert Price, 2003/07/31
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Derek Robert Price, 2003/07/31
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Bruno Haible, 2003/07/24
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] getline & getline_safe, Derek Robert Price, 2003/07/24