On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 02:14:20PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 11/18/2014 1:12 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:44:35PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d > >wrote: > >>On 11/18/2014 12:10 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >>>On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:45:13AM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d > >>>wrote: > >>>>I'm sorry to say this, but these rationalizations as to why C > >>>>cannot add a trivial enhancement that takes nothing away and > >>>>solves most of the buffer overflow problems leaves me shaking my > >>>>head. > >>> > >>>What's the trivial thing that will solve most buffer overflow > >>>problems? > >> > >>http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/cs-biggest-mistake/228701625 > > > >That's not a trivial change at all -- it will break pretty much every > >C program there is out there. Just think of how much existing C code > >relies on this conflation between arrays and pointers, and implicit > >conversions between them. > > No, I proposed a new syntax that would have different behavior: > > void foo(char a[..])
Ah, I see. How would that be different from just declaring an array struct and using it pervasively? Existing C code would not benefit from such an addition without a lot of effort put into refactoring. T -- If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in frightful danger of seeing it for the first time. -- G. K. Chesterton
