On Friday, 03 February 2006, at 02:30:27 (-0500), Kris Maglione wrote: > I know that it's not portable, I just said that something needs to > be done and that that does it. I also said that it should be done > better.
I would argue that an snprintf() implementation which does not guarantee NUL-termination is broken and needs fixing. And applications continuing to compensate for this broken behavior only perpetuates it. > I knew that at least one person would say that. I wouldn't call it > 'Compile-time directives masquerading as run-time conditionals', > either. You can call it "Bob" if you want; it makes little difference to me. It's still significantly less readable than before. > Using it in in if conditional rather than a pre-processor ifdef > makes the code easier to read and makes debugging easier, Wrong on both counts. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry' ..." -- Gary Larson, "The Far Side" ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
