%% Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: pe> "Paul D. Smith" <psmith@xxxxxxx> writes: >> Are there any such functions in GLIB or similar? Do people know of >> similar functions in other OS's etc.? If not, and I wanted to think >> about creating some, what kind of naming convention would be >> appropriate? I thought of strp*() but I don't know. pe> I don't know of any such functions, though they sound like nice ones pe> to have. pe> I wouldn't use strp*, since that prefix is already used for strpbrk pe> and strptime, not to mention glibc strpcpy. Nor strl*, since it's pe> used for OpenBSD strlcpy and strlcat pe> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strlcpy>. Nor stre*, since it's used pe> for Plan 9 strecpy pe> <http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/plan9/sys/src/libc/port/strecpy.c>. pe> In fact, come to think of it, I wouldn't use str* at all, since the pe> functions you're talking about work on arbitrary memory buffers pe> that can contain internal NULs. I was going to protest at first: strncat() checks for both nul and the length, and I was thinking the new string functions would do likewise. But, on second thought, I don't know that I need this. If I have a pointer to the end I'm pretty sure it's always on or before the nul char. pe> How about "meme*", for "memory with end pointer"? (I think the "e" in pe> Plan 9 "strecpy" also means "end pointer".) E.g., How frustrating that the arguments in strecpy() don't follow convention; the end pointer should be (IMO) the last argument, just like the length is the last argument in strncpy(). pe> char *memechr(const char *str, const char *endp, int c); Ditto here: why is the endp the second argument when in memcpy(), memchr(), etc. the length is the last argument? I would rather see: char *memechr(const char *str, char c, const char *endp); pe> And while you're at it, why not fix the type of the last arg, since pe> you're not assuming K&R compatibility any more? pe> char *memechr(const char *str, const char *endp, char c); OK... remind me (very briefly) again why it was "int c" before? Something to do with promotion rules... if you didn't have a prototype in scope (and there were no prototypes in K&R of course) was it? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <psmith@xxxxxxx> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
