stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC]
Date Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:29:30 GMT
Farid Zaripov wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
>> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:23 PM
>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC]
>>
>>>> Jira for the "bug in rw_match(&char, &char, 1)."
>> But is that really a bug in rw_match()? It looks to me 
>> more like a design limitation than a bug. In the case of the
>> wchar_t* and UserChar* overloads of rw_match() there should 
>> be a simple solution: make sure the first (char*) argument 
>> has enough elements (it should be easy to guarantee that 
>> since the argument is the hardcoded string we match against). 
>> And changing the char* overload to behave the same as the 
>> other two, i.e., to only do the expansion on the first 
>> argument and not on the second should fix that case, no?
> 
>   The problem is in that rw_match() used to compare single characters.
> There no problem in compare one character NUL-terminated string
> (i.e. "b" or "a@0b"). We should not use rw_match() to compare
> single characters.

I think something like rw_match("b", "a@0b") should work, just
as long as we do the special processing on just one of the two
arguments (the second one in this case) and not both. The
problem, as I understand it, is that we process both strings
in the (char*, char*) case.

Martin

Mime
View raw message