home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: solon.com!not-for-mail
- From: seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.software-eng
- Subject: Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer
- Date: 23 Mar 1996 18:52:39 -0600
- Organization: Usenet Fact Police (Undercover)
- Message-ID: <4j26cn$gh7@solutions.solon.com>
- References: <1995Jul3.034108.4193@rcmcon.com> <314DADD4.3DE@oc.com> <4j1gmu$crl@solutions.solon.com> <31545B86.4CC0@iadfw.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: solutions.solon.com
-
- In article <31545B86.4CC0@iadfw.net>, Larry Weiss <lfw@iadfw.net> wrote:
- >I don't understand. Suppose that I want to substitute my strlen() logic
- >for the vendors implementation of strlen() in such a way that not only
- >my source's calls on strlen() are affected, but also any 3rd party's
- >library's uses of strlen() get the "benefit". How does your technique
- >apply to that scenario?
-
- It doesn't; this is arguably a feature, as this makes them immune to any
- mistakes in my implementation of str_len().
-
- If you have their source, you patch it.
-
- -s
- --
- Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com - Copyright 1996 Peter Seebach.
- C/Unix wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really!
- FUCK the communications decency act. Goddamned government. [literally.]
- The *other* C FAQ - http://www.solon.com/~seebs/c/c-iaq.html
-