Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!shelby!decwrl!decvax!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: strings
Message-ID: <13233@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 20 May 89 22:17:24 GMT
References: <31787@sri-unix.SRI.COM>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 18

In article <31787@sri-unix.SRI.COM> diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) writes:
>[in two separate articles, Doug Gwyn writes:]
>>If you want counted strings, C makes it relatively easy to provide them for
>>yourself...  Furthermore there is no reason your counted-string
>>implementation should be other than perfectly portable.
>
>Yes, just like [you can use Silly Macros to make C look like Algol]
>and still be perfectly portable.  Everyone will hate you.

Not analogous.  Yes, I would curse your grave if you used the SHELLGOL macros
in a program I had to maintain, but no, I would not object to the use of a
struct {size_t; char *} to represent text in cases where the usual model is
inappropriate.

(Note that last phrase: "in cases where the usual model is inappropriate".
For most purposes, \0-termination works just fine.)

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint