Oops, I wasn't aware of the static duration of the buffers. I thought they all just leaked. Stupid me... I'm sorry. I'll read more carefully before posting the next time.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:00:41 +0900 Shigio Yamaguchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I have some questions. (Please don't think that I oppose you.) > > > They return strbuf_value, and don't close it. At least some of them seem > > to be intentional, but even if that's the case, it's certainly bad practice. > > (Might it be because these codes were copied from Perl and not yet adapted > > to C?) > > Why do you think it is bad practice? > > > Since the return values for most of these are immediately flushed to files, > > why don't we pass a (custom) stream to it? Later on, if and when the > > string is needed, we can implement a "stream" object backed by an on-memory > > buffer (or simply read out the string from the stream). > > What and how does it improve? I thought of giving the functions a substitute of STRBUF that writes out to file immediately as a straightforward solution to the "leak," but using static works just as fine. Since we have the latter working, there's no reason to switch. -- Jun Inoue [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Bug-global mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-global
