Johannes Schindelin <> writes:

>> Also I agree with Peff that a test with an embedded NUL would be a
>> good thing.
> This is something I will leave to somebody else, as it was not my
> intention to fix this and I *really* have more pressing things to do right
> now... Sorry!

As I said a few minutes ago, I think we can stop _before_ worrying
about an embedded NUL, which is something we haven't handled before
anyway so it is a new feature that can be built later outside the
scope of this series.

Reply via email to