> I you pointed to a perfect example. While extremely it is extremely
> convenient for some architectures to represent strings as a pointer to
> char/bytes + an implicit terminator, Pascal strings (really, a
> struct/object containing pointer + length) are imminently safer. As
This is not true.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:20 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:02:44 -0700
> Louis Santillan wrote:
>
> Hey Louis,
>
>> As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general)
>> has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply to keep
>> old code compiling (many
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Louis Santillan wrote:
>> As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general)
>> has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply to keep
>> old code compiling (many methods that start wi
Hi Anselm,
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 10:00:16AM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> If I share the same view tomorrow, I will apply your patch.
Are you still planning on on applying this patch?
Eric
On 2016-06-08 03:55:38 -0400, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Hi Troy,
>
> I'm not sure if this feature is really required. Typing a wrong
> password can be corrected on second attempt anyways.
True, and I know this well. However, muscle memory trumps logic, and I end up
typing Ctrl-u every day a couple
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:02:44 -0700
Louis Santillan wrote:
Hey Louis,
> As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general)
> has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply to keep
> old code compiling (many methods that start with str*, malloc/free
> corner but fre
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Louis Santillan wrote:
> As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general)
> has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply to keep
> old code compiling (many methods that start with str*, malloc/free
> corner but frequent cases, etc). I'd say
On Friday, June 10, 2016, FRIGN wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:06:54 -0700
> Louis Santillan wrote:
>
> Hey Louis,
>
> > Good job for getting this working. I'm a believer that suckless
> > indirectly speaks to API design in addition to software design. There
> > are many parts of libc that su
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:06:54 -0700
Louis Santillan wrote:
Hey Louis,
> Good job for getting this working. I'm a believer that suckless
> indirectly speaks to API design in addition to software design. There
> are many parts of libc that suck, IMO. Years ago, when I found Felix
> von Leitner's
[i have too much time][i have too much time][i have too much time][i
have too much time][i have too much time][i have too much time][i have
too much time]
On 6/10/16, Louis Santillan wrote:
> Sylvain,
>
> Good job for getting this working. I'm a believer that suckless
> indirectly speaks to API
10 matches
Mail list logo
