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
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.
thanks. a good Samaritan, thou.