Re: [AD] Documentation update

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2003-09-03, Eric <ebotcazou@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What about giving a minimal guarantee?  (i.e. "at least N
> > bytes/characters" instead of "only N bytes/characters").
> 
> Do you mean on a per-function basis or as a library-wide parameter
> (something like: all string manipulation functions are guaranteed to behave
> as if there were no internal limitations, for strings whole length is less
> than X bytes)? I think this could be interesting, but we would need to write
> testcases to make sure we don't regress, because such a requirement can be
> non-obvious to propagate throughout the code.

I wasn't actually thinking that far ahead, but yes, a site-wide
guarantee could be interesting.  It'd be less work than lifting the
limits entirely, but, honestly, I doubt it's worth the effort.

(List admin: sorry if this message causes you trouble.  I'm in an ISP
transition phase, but can't change the email address that my SF.net
account points to.  Hopefully it'll be sorted out soon.)

-- 
王浩禎