Re: [bug-grep] search.c clean-up

[Jim Meyering]

Elliott Hughes <address@hidden> wrote:
...
>> The problem with the 4-parameter approach
>>
>>   static void
>>   wrap_pattern (char *pattern, size_t *pattern_len,
>>                 char const *prefix, char const *suffix)
>>   {
>>    ...
>>   }
>>
>> is that it works fine when we don't have to free the PATTERN,
>> but if anyone ever calls it with a malloc'd PATTERN, it will leak.
>
> return char*, and -- at the risk of more nitpickery -- expect the user
> to call strlen if they need to know how long the pattern is?

I disagree.
A factorization change should avoid changing semantics.
If you want to declare that patterns do not contain NUL bytes
and adjust all of the corresponding interfaces, then belongs
in a separate change.

With that in mind, you might even argue that my change
should have preserved the pattern's unused trailing NUL byte.

> "static char* wrap_pattern(const char* pattern, const char* prefix,
> const char* suffix)" seems reasonable to me.
>
> or rename search.c as search.cpp and use std::string. all this
> pretending a char* is a string is *so* 1970s. (see also the comment
> starting "The PCRE interface doesn't allow NUL bytes in the pattern..."
> in the same file.)

Being limited by C is indeed frustrating.