On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:07:28 -0700 Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Solve two ergonomic issues with struct seq_buf: "ergonomic"? Does it cause carpal tunnel? ;-) > > 1) Too much boilerplate is required to initialize: > > struct seq_buf s; > char buf[32]; > > seq_buf_init(s, buf, sizeof(buf)); > > Instead, we can build this directly on the stack. Provide > DECLARE_SEQ_BUF() macro to do this: > > DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(s, 32); > > 2) %NUL termination is fragile and requires 2 steps to get a valid > C String (and is a layering violation exposing the "internals" of > seq_buf): > > seq_buf_terminate(s); > do_something(s->buffer); > > Instead, we can just return s->buffer direction after terminating it > in refactored seq_buf_terminate(), now known as seq_buf_cstr(): > > do_soemthing(seq_buf_cstr(s)); Do we really need to call it _cstr? Why not just have seq_buf_str() ? I mean, this is C, do we need to state that in the name too? BTW, I'm perfectly fine with this change, just the naming I have issues with. -- Steve
