On Dec 19, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> Dave, do you see any downsides
> to the above idea as I have fleshed it out?
Only the ones I outlined earlier in this thread...
On Dec 18, 2010, at 11:34 AM, David MacMahon wrote:
> I think automatic allocation by the library function, while
Hi Dave (with a question for Andrew at the end):
> On Dec 18, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> With plgnfnam that would be changed to something like
>>
>> (needed_size, fnam) = plgnfnam(100)
>> if needed_size >= 100:
>> # Oops, 100 was too small.
>> fname = plgnfnam(needed_size+1)[1]
>
On Dec 18, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2010-12-18 11:34-0800 David MacMahon wrote:
>
>> Am I missing something?
>
> See their example 1d where they check for truncation. Instead of
> taking an error return at that point as they did in their sample code
> the user could instead
On 2010-12-18 11:34-0800 David MacMahon wrote:
> Hi, Alan,
>
> On Dec 18, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>
>> Another model for plgnver, plgndev, and plgnfnam is one similar to
>> strlcpy that is discussed by Todd C. Miller and Theo de Raadt at
>> http://www.gratisoft.us/todd/papers/strlc
Hi, Alan,
On Dec 18, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> Another model for plgnver, plgndev, and plgnfnam is one similar to
> strlcpy that is discussed by Todd C. Miller and Theo de Raadt at
> http://www.gratisoft.us/todd/papers/strlcpy.html. That is a most
> interesting paper to read. I
Hi Andrew (with one question for Dave):
Thanks for contributing to this discussion.
On 2010-12-18 13:59- Andrew Ross wrote:
> I think passing a buffer size is the safest way to go. If you wanted a
> constant buffer length, then it should be PATH_MAX to ensure any path
> will fit, but this st
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Alan Irwin wrote:
> On 2010-12-16 21:15-0800 David MacMahon wrote:
>
> > Hi, Alan,
> >
> > On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> >
> >> Here is what I propose instead of this temporary measure. We go with
> >> a backward-incompatible API cha
On 2010-12-16 21:15-0800 David MacMahon wrote:
> Hi, Alan,
>
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>
>> Here is what I propose instead of this temporary measure. We go with
>> a backward-incompatible API change (and associated soname bump to
>> force everybody to recompile) of
>>
>>
Hi, Alan,
On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> Here is what I propose instead of this temporary measure. We go with
> a backward-incompatible API change (and associated soname bump to
> force everybody to recompile) of
>
> c_plgfnam( char *fnam ); ==> c_plgfnam( char *fnam, PLINT
Andrew, I would very much appreciate your and other PLplot API
expert's comments on this issue.
I noticed during some of my generic testing today that the output file
name was truncated for the 31st example at the 79th character. This
seems to be a rather tight limit for today's computers where f
10 matches
Mail list logo
