Re: getline & getline_safe

Paul Eggert wrote:

> Derek Robert Price <derek@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>  
>
> > Don't most modern operating systems allow ulimit to limit process size?
> >    
> Yes, but that's a crude weapon, whereas getline_safe() is aimed just
> at this particular problem.
>
> Personally, I don't like functions whose name ends in "_safe".
> Nothing is 100% safe.  It's better to end their name in "_safer".
> Or better yet, why not call it "getnline" as per the original bug report:
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-cvs@xxxxxxx/msg00326.html>
getnline() is fine with me.

> > If getline_safe() _is_ necessary, is there interest in importing it
> > into GNULIB (it really just wraps a call to getdelim2())?
> >    
> I'd have interest, though I don't see how you can just wrap a call to
> getdelim2.  Don't you also need to modify getdelim2's signature?
>  
Oops.  Yes.  I read too quickly and assumed that getdelim2() was just 
the old getstr() in ccvs/lib/getline.c with a new name.
So a new getndelim() function would be needed for wrapping or just the 
getnline() function.
Derek

--
               *8^)

Email: derek@xxxxxxxxxxx

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
--
[Let us] go on in doing with [the] pen what in other times was done with the 
sword, [and] show that reformation is more practicable by operating on the mind 
than on the body of man.

                        - Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1792