On 04/05/2012 07:46 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 09:39 +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 5 April 2012 06:19, Chase Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 04/04/2012 07:18 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>> Thanks. (I do note that you removed the \n from the display and >>>> didn't add it to the write of the display to the fd - I don't know >>>> if that matters or not, so figured I'd mention it.) >>> >>> Oh, I forgot to mention the change. Thanks for catching it. >>> >>> I don't see any reason the '\n' should be necessary. >> >> It's a good way to know you've not got a partial write, and that the >> display really is :1 rather than the first two bytes of :137. > > I guess? Except right after that we close() it, and EOF's a pretty > solid delimiter. > > Not a big deal either way, but probably the \n is slightly more paranoid > in case the launcher's string library expects newline termination.
I don't really see any point to having the '\n'. As Adam noted, the EOF should be good enough. I also think that anyone dealing with this level of the X "experience" should know what they are doing here anyway. I don't plan to change it unless someone feels strong enough to NAK it. Thanks! -- Chase _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
