On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 09:18:01AM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:32:16AM +0000, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> ... > >> For example, it would be very tempting to compare files with > >> "strcmp(buf1, buf2)", but that would just fail silently when the file > >> contains a '\0' byte. > > > > Indeed, OTHO doing that would be pretty silly, as embending NULs in a > > strbuf is wrong, it's a _str_buf, not a random-binary-buffer. It's meant > > to make the use of strings easier, not to use as generic purpose byte > > buffers. Of course they can, but well, it's not what they are designed > > for in the first place. > > People, please realize strbuf "API" is not a serious API. > > It wasn't even intended to be anything more than just a > quick-and-dirty implementation of fgets that can grow > dynamically. The other callers added by people to have it do > general string manipulations were just bolted-on, not designed. > I haven't taken a serious look at bstring nor any of the > alternatives yet, but defending strbuf as if it was designed to > be a sane API is just silly. actually I was defending the "enhanced" strbuf API I was proposing before, sorry if that was unclear. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpQz7u7b4xuk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
