Sorry, I was trying s-nail, and answered by mistake.
Have a nice day!
Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 11 June 2016 at 07:34, wrote:
> > Strings are not idenpotent. In C strings, any pointer inside
> > of the string is a new string. Splitting strings is only
> > writing a 0. Splitting strings in Pascal strings require to
> >
On 11 June 2016 at 07:34, wrote:
> Strings are not idenpotent. In C strings, any pointer inside
> of the string is a new string. Splitting strings is only
> writing a 0. Splitting strings in Pascal strings require to
> allocate a new chunk of memory and copy all the characters.
> I you pointed to a perfect example. While extremely it is extremely
> convenient for some architectures to represent strings as a pointer to
> char/bytes + an implicit terminator, Pascal strings (really, a
> struct/object containing pointer + length) are imminently safer. As
This is not true.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:20 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:02:44 -0700
> Louis Santillan wrote:
>
> Hey Louis,
>
>> As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general)
>> has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Louis Santillan wrote:
>> As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general)
>> has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply to keep
>> old
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:02:44 -0700
Louis Santillan wrote:
Hey Louis,
> As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general)
> has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply to keep
> old code compiling (many methods that start with str*,
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Louis Santillan wrote:
> As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general)
> has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply to keep
> old code compiling (many methods that start with str*, malloc/free
> corner but frequent
On Friday, June 10, 2016, FRIGN wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:06:54 -0700
> Louis Santillan wrote:
>
> Hey Louis,
>
> > Good job for getting this working. I'm a believer that suckless
> > indirectly speaks to API design in addition to software design.
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:06:54 -0700
Louis Santillan wrote:
Hey Louis,
> Good job for getting this working. I'm a believer that suckless
> indirectly speaks to API design in addition to software design. There
> are many parts of libc that suck, IMO. Years ago, when I found
[i have too much time][i have too much time][i have too much time][i
have too much time][i have too much time][i have too much time][i have
too much time]
On 6/10/16, Louis Santillan wrote:
> Sylvain,
>
> Good job for getting this working. I'm a believer that suckless
>
Sylvain,
Good job for getting this working. I'm a believer that suckless
indirectly speaks to API design in addition to software design. There
are many parts of libc that suck, IMO. Years ago, when I found Felix
von Leitner's talk about software design [0], and dietlibc [1], and
libdjb [2],
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 07:18:21PM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> 3. smtp_line_send() can't handle short writes, because the pointer that
> is handed in as second argument to write() is never advanced...
Fixed.
Thx!
--
Sylvain
On 06/09/2016 01:35 PM, FRIGN wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:18:21 +0200
Markus Wichmann wrote:
Hey Markus,
Dear Lord, it's been a while since I've seen such nice code make so
bafflingly bad design choices. Where to start?
the suckless mailing list is not a place for
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:18:21 +0200
Markus Wichmann wrote:
Hey Markus,
> Dear Lord, it's been a while since I've seen such nice code make so
> bafflingly bad design choices. Where to start?
the suckless mailing list is not a place for religious cults.
> 1. The whole ulinux
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:50:56PM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Introducing a new minimal and naive smtp server à la suckless: lnanosmtp
>
> https://github.com/sylware/lnanosmtp
> https://repo.or.cz/lnanosmtp.git
>
> cheers,
>
> --
> Sylvain
>
Dear Lord, it's been a while since
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 03:41:22PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> This is so full of bullshit. There's no reason e.g. not to make it
> compilable on the BSD's. The Linux syscall-interface is also prone
> to changes.
If the Linux syscall interface changes in a non backwards-compat manner
then it is
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:02:29 +0200
Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
Hey Kamil,
> So libc is overkill, but instead you ship an entire tangled hierarchy of
> nonportable and arch-specific headers to talk directly to the kernel,
> which will all probably break in a random point
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:03:33PM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2016, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Introducing a new minimal and naive smtp server à la
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:04:07PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 22:50:56 +1100
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> Hey Sylvain,
>
> > Introducing a new minimal and naive smtp server à la suckless: lnanosmtp
> >
> > https://github.com/sylware/lnanosmtp
> >
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:03:33PM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2016, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Introducing a new minimal and naive smtp server à la suckless: lnanosmtp
> >
> > https://github.com/sylware/lnanosmtp
> >
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 22:50:56 +1100
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
Hey Sylvain,
> Introducing a new minimal and naive smtp server à la suckless: lnanosmtp
>
> https://github.com/sylware/lnanosmtp
> https://repo.or.cz/lnanosmtp.git
I looked at the code and wondered: what the
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Introducing a new minimal and naive smtp server à la suckless: lnanosmtp
>
> https://github.com/sylware/lnanosmtp
> https://repo.or.cz/lnanosmtp.git
>
> cheers,
>
> --
> Sylvain
Ages old, stupid question. What's
23 matches
Mail list logo