On 22/09/2014, Evan Gates <evan.gates_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing I'm not clear on, in your opinion does suckless software use
> fixed or dynamic sized buffers/stacks? i.e. should it support
> arbitrarily long lines? depth of nested blocks? number of write files?
> I've seen some of both in software that seems suckless.
Arbitrarily long lines for sure, as one can write a sed script to the
limits of a sed implementation but one can not know all future input a
priori.
> And lastly, somewhat off topic, is there a plan for a suckless regex
> engine to use in sbase? Or will it continue to rely upon the libc's
> engine (which causes different results on different systems)?
Mitigating broken libc is the way of OpenSSL and insanity.
On 23/09/2014, FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
> You are on a good way, but keep in mind that you shouldn't move too far
> away from POSIX.
> Added functionality? Why not. But the key here is not to break what
> works with strict implementations.
This. As far as I care sed is legacy; we have ssam [1].
> After all, Mr. Gates, I hope you aren't a secret spy sent by Microsoft.
?!
[1]
http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man1/ssam.html
Received on Tue Sep 23 2014 - 16:40:57 CEST