Re: Different string format options, benefits?

Dave Berry <db@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
20 Oct 91 13:52:01 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Different string format options, benefits? coxs2@rpi.edu (Sean C. Cox) (1991-10-16)
Re: Different string format options, benefits? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1991-10-17)
Re: Different string format options, benefits? pk@cs.tut.fi (1991-10-18)
Re: Different string format options, benefits? agulbra@Siri.Unit.NO (1991-10-18)
Re: Different string format options, benefits? db@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) (1991-10-20)
Re: Different string format options, benefits? tm@well.sf.ca.us (1991-10-22)
Re: Different string format options, benefits? buzzard@eng.umd.edu (1991-10-25)
Re: Different string format options, benefits? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1991-10-25)
Re: Different string format options, benefits? sdm7g@aemsun.med.virginia.edu (1991-11-01)
Re: Different string format options, benefits? bliss@sp64.csrd.uiuc.edu (1991-11-05)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Dave Berry <db@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Keywords: code, C
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U
References: 91-10-061 91-10-072
Date: 20 Oct 91 13:52:01 GMT

Sean C. Cox <coxs2@rpi.edu> writes:
>[Tradeoffs of <size,bytes> vs <bytes,null> representation?]


It's easier to store strings containing null bytes with the <size,bytes>
representation. Perhaps this is so obvious that people overlook it, but
the use of the <bytes,null> representation in C, combined with sloppy
programming, has produced several UNIX text utilities that don't work
on files that contain nulls. This can be very annoying.


Dave.
--
  Dave Berry, LFCS, Edinburgh Uni. db%dcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
[Similar comments were made by Dan Prener <prener @ watson.ibm.com>,
drw@riesz.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley), and Todd M. Lewis
<utoddl@next1.oit.unc.edu> -John]
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.