Le Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 01:36:54PM +0200, ??? a écrit :
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 06:13:45AM +, David Holland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 05:51:13PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > > For this one I will go with the established behavior, but what should I
> > > do when someone
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 06:13:45AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 05:51:13PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > For this one I will go with the established behavior, but what should I
> > do when someone is passing, in octal or in hexa: "\000" ou "\x00"?
> If you don't
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 05:51:13PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> For this one I will go with the established behavior, but what should I
> do when someone is passing, in octal or in hexa: "\000" ou "\x00"?
If you don't support embedded nulls in the strings you're handling
(and most
KRE> It depends upon the usage. But if you're processing escapes, you
KRE> need to also process \\ to mean a literal '\' of course, [...]
Not necessarily -- '\134' would be good enough :-)
Just joking, of course. The weekend is nigh.
Martin
Date:Fri, 30 Jun 2023 17:51:13 +0200
From:tlaro...@polynum.com
Message-ID:
| So what is established behavior in this case
It depends upon the usage. But if you're processing escapes, you
need to also process \\ to mean a literal '\' of course, and once
you have
Le Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 03:37:18PM +, David Holland a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:32:10PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > > If you want to write a two digit octal number you can not continue with
> > > another ocatal digit. In C you could do "...\77" "7" and have it concat
>
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:32:10PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > If you want to write a two digit octal number you can not continue with
> > another ocatal digit. In C you could do "...\77" "7" and have it concat
> > the literals. In config files (without concatenation) you need some
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, Martin Husemann wrote:
If you want to write a two digit octal number you can not continue with
another ocatal digit. In C you could do "...\77" "7" and have it concat
the literals. In config files (without concatenation) you need some
other trick.
Couple of ways to do
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:45:55PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> >>> "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall
> >>> be written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal
> >>> number."
> >> [...]
> > I beg to differ: since due to this very unfortunate "variable
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:58:57PM +0200, Roland Illig a écrit :
> Am 28.06.2023 um 12:57 schrieb tlaro...@polynum.com:
> > But isn't it incorrect? POSIX 2018 says:
> >
> > '"\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> > written as a byte with the numeric value
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 04:24:20PM +, RVP a écrit :
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
>
> > But you can't: from the syntax given, \777 is a perfectly valid \77
> > octal sequence followed by the character '7'.
> >
>
> That would be a very surprising way to resolve the
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:45:55PM -0400, Mouse a écrit :
> >>> "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall
> >>> be written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal
> >>> number."
> >> [...]
> > I beg to differ: since due to this very unfortunate "variable
Am 28.06.2023 um 12:57 schrieb tlaro...@polynum.com:
> But isn't it incorrect? POSIX 2018 says:
>
> '"\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal number.'
The main intended takeaway from this sentence is
>>> "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall
>>> be written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal
>>> number."
>> [...]
> I beg to differ: since due to this very unfortunate "variable length"
> feature, your scanner has to read char by char, it can
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:06:38PM +0200, Martin Husemann a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:59:10PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> > written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal number."
> >
>
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
But you can't: from the syntax given, \777 is a perfectly valid \77
octal sequence followed by the character '7'.
That would be a very surprising way to resolve the ambiguity which is
present here. There are others when it comes to octal
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:59:10PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal number."
>
> ? Because I parse it as: an octal escape sequence can be \d, or \dd or
>
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:26:55PM +0200, Martin Husemann a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:01:46PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > But you can't: from the syntax given, \777 is a perfectly valid \77
> > octal sequence followed by the character '7'.
>
> No, from the Posix text you
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:01:46PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> But you can't: from the syntax given, \777 is a perfectly valid \77
> octal sequence followed by the character '7'.
No, from the Posix text you quoted it clearly is a three digit ocatl
sequence, and its value is out of range.
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 01:10:04PM +, RVP a écrit :
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
>
> > But isn't it incorrect? POSIX 2018 says:
> >
> > '"\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> > written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
But isn't it incorrect? POSIX 2018 says:
'"\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal number.'
since 477 -> 777 are not byte values, shouldn't \777 be
When refactoring and rewriting the scanning/parsing code for inetd(8), I
wanted to add, too, the possibility to pass octal escape sequences
(hex were already added) in order to be less surprising and to,
actually, support whatever an admin is acustomed to use when invoking
utilities.
Since this
22 matches
Mail list logo
