At 04:57 even 10/2/02 -0700, S...lesh wrote: >[...]At the same time, acknowledge the issues involved.
eh? /Those/ issues where not the point of discussion. >flexible storage v/s buffer overflow: >[...] >you r right in saying buffer overflow stems up from >predicted size of input.. but ur programming logic should take care of >reading only as much as you can and rejecting the rest. which I have already mentioned in great detail. So why repeat the same point? >In windoz CRT 'passing': >[...]and passing it in to user passed pointer! agreeably I have not done any windows programming. These above explained details are new to be but slightly irrelevant as we are not discussing /particular/ systems. >hope that clarifies, It does not clarify what your point is. The matter was clear enough to me earlier [except, the details of your example]. My original reaction was towards the insinuation by Satya that fixed arrays are dangerous and the reason being buffer overflows. My reply, though travelling in a roundabout way, said the same thing that you did. I did not reply to your earlier mail because I felt we both had the same point. The linked buffers example I gave was ad-hock and was to support my argument. I never claimed it is even a good solution. My exact statement "For truly flexible storage a linked lists of buffers may be more the way to go." - which is true enough. Hope that /this/ clarifies your [mis]understandings. > > consider me a dummy >ok. thanks. a good Samaritan, thou. _______________________________________________ http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
