RE: [boost] Re: static sized strings

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-28 05:08:39

John Nagle wrote:
>Reece Dunn wrote:
>>Different programmers favour the different semantics, so I ask: why not 
>>parameterise it, providing a default behaviour.
>
>    As with "do we null-terminate", I think we have to pick a
>behavior and stick to it.  I could live with either set of
>semantics, but adding a parameter makes the issue more confusing.
>(And you have to supply conversions.) Most strings are sized a bit too
>big, anyway.

Ok. I'll stick with the existing "add an extra character for null", since 
there seems to be more people wanting that style semantics.

>    On a related subject, we should have unconditional null termination.
>"fixed_string" items are always null-terminated.  "snprintf",
>"strncat", etc. have hazardous semantics: if you overflow the string,
>it is not null terminated.  (This is a bug in my
>current version, incidentally.)  We should guarantee null
>termination in all cases.  The whole point of this
>class is improved safety, after all.

My implementation ensures this. If it does not, then it is a bug.

Regards,
Reece

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE connection, FREE modem and one month's FREE line rental, plus a 
US or European flight when you sign up for BT Broadband!  
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband