On 2021-04-15 at 06:44 -0400, Dave Mielke <[email protected]> wrote: > [quoted lines by Samuel Thibault on 2021/04/15 at 12:37 +0200]
> >Still. If the end-programmer produced a mask that isn't of the same > >size of the text, it'll very probably be due to a bug, and it's better > >reported than silently truncated. > But that could be part of the common handling. It's still better for the > binding to be able to provide, without modification, it's sizes and let the > underlying C code reject it in a common way. This, to me, is a separate > issue from allowing the text and masks to need to match the region size. There are two requirements going on at the same time. On one hand the question is about BrlAPI's usability from C. From a C programmers view it is complete waste of resources to pass regionSize, andMaskSize and orMaskSize to brlapi__write, if they have the same value anyways. From the binding writer's perspective this makes much more sense. Similarly for a C programmer it makes sense to use NUL-terminated strings, but for all other languages it is pointless. In my opinion it is not a bad idea to sometimes have both interfaces – those that are most convenient for C programmers, and those that are easiest for the ones who call C through FFI. We don't need to change brlapi__write, if adding another function makes sense. But whether it makes sense, I'm no more sure. If brlapi__writeTextUtf8 is added so that it does not rely on the NUL-terminator but has a size parameter, I am done with this discussion. The reason why I initially said that I don't need it was that I didn't yet know all the semantics of brlapi__write. -- Aura _______________________________________________ This message was sent via the BRLTTY mailing list. To post a message, send an e-mail to: [email protected] For general information, go to: http://brltty.app/mailman/listinfo/brltty
