Marc Slemko wrote:
>
> What are you suggesting your wrapper around sprintf() for? I was under
> the impression that you were suggesting avoiding portability problems with
> our snprintf() implementation by simply using a wrapper around sprintf()
> instead, but looking at what you are saying now perhaps that is a
> mistaken impression?
>
Sounds like it... I recall awhile ago we were considering a switched
approach to the snprintf-availability problem. We had:
1. If the OS has snprintf() already, use it
2. If not, then use our ap_snprintf()
3. If for some reason #2 doesn't work, then
we would provide a USE_SPRINTF_AS_SNPRINTF
option as a last resort.
All my comments were about #3... I'm not really comfy with #3
since it opens us up to notices like "If you compiled Apache
using their USE_SPRINTF_AS_SNPRINTF option -blah blah blah-" :)
If we do #3, then it should be the braindead version used in
DB
--
====================================================================
Jim Jagielski | jaguNET Access Services
jim@jaguNET.com | http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Not the Craw... the CRAW!"
|