The point in replying to your mail was to suggest other
alternatives. My suggestions were
1. Standard libraries (eg. Boost) --> if possible to use
2. If not --> use design methodologies eg. given is a
simple scanf implementation in windows crt
--- q u a s i <quasar(a)vsnl.net> wrote:
At 04:57 even 10/2/02 -0700, S...lesh wrote:
[...]At the same time, acknowledge the issues
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
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
details are new to be but slightly irrelevant as we are
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
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
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.
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!