Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables)

["Soni L." <fakedme@...>]

On 07/07/16 03:00 PM, Philipp Janda wrote:
> Am 07.07.2016 um 19:11 schröbte Roberto Ierusalimschy:
> > > Thanks for your detailed reply here. I had in mind general 
> > > complaints about
> > > how difficult C strings have turned out to be in terms of use and 
> > > security,
> > > but I take your point that they do several things well—especially if 
> > > we’re
> > > concerned with efficiency. [...]
> >
> > It is very easy to find several flaws in C strings, until you consider
> > all the alternatives.
>
> Pretty much every programming language since C has done a better job 
> about strings. One obvious example: C++ strings, which can grow, 
> calculate the size in O(1), and contain NUL characters. You can even 
> have bounds checking on access ...

And cannot be handed over to the OS without first being validated. 
Remember exploits involving java and NUL and filenames?

> Am I the only one who has re-implemented something like C++ strings in 
> C for storing binary data or for building strings piecemeal?
>
> Anyway, even Lua doesn't use C-style strings for strings.
>
> > -- Roberto
>
> Philipp

--
Disclaimer: these emails may be made public at any given time, with or without reason. If you don't agree with this, DO NOT REPLY.