Hello,
> But let me give you an example:
>
> sturt foo {
> char bar[LENGTH]
> int something_else;
> }
>
> foo s;
>
> for (i = 0, i <= LENGTH, i++){
> s.bar[i] = '\x0';
> }
> [...]
> How could such be fixed?
> Now tell me how I can do that with C/C++?
This is a easy one: embrace C++11 !
struct foo {
std::array<char, LENGTH> bar;
int somethine_else;
};
Then, you have the choice between the following buffer-overrun-resistant
solutions:
- s.bar.fill('\x0');
- for(char & c : s.bar) c = '\x0';
- std::fill(begin(s.bar), end(s.bar), '\x0')
There are other solutions based on iterators where typographic errors may have
the same overflow result
for (char *c = std::begin(s.bar), E=std::end(s.bar)
; c != E // <- here, old school developers may write c<E, or worse: c<=E
; ++c)
*c = '\x0';
The difficulty with C++, is to force ourselves to forget we also know C.
(BTW, C/C++ is a beast that shall be hunt down. Either code in C, or in C++.
Never try to import C good practices in C++ because they don't apply)
You could also have used plain static arrays, the second and third solutions
would have still worked.
> Maybe such solutions exist. I'm pretty confident that such tooling
> built into a compiler does help gitting stable code much more than
> valgrind.
Indeed. It's always better to find errors at compilation stage, or at least in
test units.
> Now you can continue with
>
> foo a = new(); // and get the debug layout eventually.
> free(a): // and this would check that no memory corruption happened.
Again. Forget free/delete exist and embrace smart-pointers. Not necessarily
std::shared_ptr<>, but at least the light and fast std::unique_ptr<>.
> But if you know a tool which is as smart as I told above, let me know
> and teach me, please. I know that this can be done. And in fact I
> want to do that. Thus if thus tooling is not available yet, I have to
> write it.
The way that C++ is taught is the problem. One of the most interesting article
that indirectly demonstrates why we should embrace other ways to organize our
code is the following :
http://ra3s.com/wordpress/dysfunctional-programming/return-code-vs-exception-handling/
Anyway. Use whatever language you master. But don't invent/create a new one for
this project -- I hope I misread the first message about choosing a new
language to implement this fork of vim.
------
On another topic as a plugin writer that has always forced himself to stick to
viml (for portability issues), it would be nice to have viml supported (for
ascendant compatibility). I've written to many things, and I don't want to
leave and loose everything.
--
Luc Hermitte
http://lh-vim.googlecode.com/
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
