Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Patch 6.1.099

Expand Messages
  • Nikolai 'pcp' Weibull
    ... no, a reason to write a vim_snprintf() perhaps? =) perhaps not worth the trouble, source size increase... -- /* Name: Nikolai pcp Weibull -- Age: 22 --
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 26, 2002
      On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:20:04 +0000, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
      >
      > Nikolai Weibull wrote:
      >
      > > ok, i really don't want to drag this discussion out any more, but: isn't
      > > using sprintf() inherently bad? say that we for some reason don't
      > > allocate enough here (any given reason), then sprintf() will force a
      > > crash. why not use snprintf() for safety?
      >
      > Not all systems have snprintf().
      >
      no, a reason to write a vim_snprintf() perhaps? =)
      perhaps not worth the trouble, source size increase...

      --
      /* Name: Nikolai 'pcp' Weibull -- Age: 22 -- Born in: Chicago, IL USA *
      * Where @: Gothenburg, Sweden -- Homepage: http://www.pcppopper.org/ *
      * Email: da.box@..., pcp@... -- System: GeForce2 MX 32 *
      * Celeron 667at950, Fujitsu 20.49gb UDMA-66, ASUS CUV4X, 256mb PC133 *
      * main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);} */
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.