Zeev-
My IQ is higher than 12, and I don't see how defensive coding could have
defended against this BC break. This code is missing error checking,
but that could be quite reasonable (e.g. if you check ahead of time that
the file is big enough to match the format you're expecting - so it's
not perfect, but it's quite reasonable). But even if it did have error
checking, it would look something like this:
You're ignoring the fact that fgets() is the wrong tool for this job.
This is something for fread(). "I want to read precisely X bytes. I
know! I'll use a function which halts at a newline character." This
isn't accidental reasoning of someone who "doesn't have the time to read
every page of the manual", This is taking antibiotics for a flu.
So, after the BC break, it'd barf. There's really no way to protect
against this BC break, and it's pretty clear this behavior is being
relied upon.
By one project. Which is very clearly using fgets() to do what fgetc()
should be doing.
Or change the docs and the variable name to something other than
maxchars is a perfect solution. :-)
Yes, and that's what I said both in this thread and on IRC before the
thread started.That's fine by me, but I think it's a different issue. The BC break
should be reverted irregardless...
Just to be clear, noone's arguing against reversion. I accepted before
this thread ever started that while the current logic is broken, there's
no driving force to fix it.
Stas-
Please don't misquote me. While I admit my crack about the stupidity
of anyone relying on this behavior was uncalled for, your fictionalized
summary was just that. Fiction. Get your facts straight.
-Sara
At 06:48 16/11/2006, Sara Golemon wrote:
Zeev-
My IQ is higher than 12, and I don't see how defensive coding could
have defended against this BC break. This code is missing error
checking, but that could be quite reasonable (e.g. if you check
ahead of time that the file is big enough to match the format
you're expecting - so it's not perfect, but it's quite
reasonable). But even if it did have error checking, it would look
something like this:
You're ignoring the fact thatfgets()is the wrong tool for this
job. This is something forfread(). "I want to read precisely X
bytes. I know! I'll use a function which halts at a newline
character." This isn't accidental reasoning of someone who "doesn't
have the time to read every page of the manual", This is taking
antibiotics for a flu.
I'm not ignoring that fact at all (well I did in this particular
email, but not beforehand). I know it's designed to read full
lines. But do you really think it's not being used for reading a
specific number of bytes as well? Especially considering the fact
that if you go to the documentation, fputs() is documented as an
alias of fwrite() (IIRC).
Whether this is or isn't the right tool for the job is beside the
point IMHO. Fact is it is being used that way, and it will break
apps if changed.
So, after the BC break, it'd barf. There's really no way to
protect against this BC break, and it's pretty clear this behavior
is being relied upon.
By one project. Which is very clearly usingfgets()to do what
fgetc() should be doing.
That's just one project on Google Code, and Ilia's search was only
for reading of two bytes IIRC.
Anyway, if there's one, there's plenty. That's an axiom :)
Or change the docs and the variable name to something other than
maxchars is a perfect solution. :-)
Yes, and that's what I said both in this thread and on IRC before
the thread started.
That's fine by me, but I think it's a different issue. The BC
break should be reverted irregardless...
Just to be clear, noone's arguing against reversion. I accepted
before this thread ever started that while the current logic is
broken, there's no driving force to fix it.
Yep I know. We're just having fun discussing it aren't we :)
Zeev