Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 342E6DB38 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:59:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 47383 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2012 23:59:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 47339 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2012 23:59:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 47329 invoked by uid 99); 21 Oct 2012 23:59:57 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:59:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.34.174.152] (HELO hates.ms) (64.34.174.152) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:59:47 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (cpe-107-015-035-019.nc.res.rr.com [107.15.35.19]) by hates.ms (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D708645C1FD for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:59:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50848C77.6070306@hates.ms> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:59:51 -0400 From: Liviu Nicoara User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] STDCXX-1073 References: <50756924.6070802@hates.ms> <507985CD.1050804@hates.ms> <507D8D9B.9000307@hates.ms> <50801A02.4080608@gmail.com> <50808294.9090103@hates.ms> <5084807A.2010606@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5084807A.2010606@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 10/21/12 19:08, Martin Sebor wrote: > There's no requirement that embedded NULs must be preserved > (that's just how it happens to be implemented). I find it best > to avoid relying on the knowledge of implementation details > when exercising the library so that tests don't start failing > after a conforming optimization or some such tweak is added > to the code. That's right. I'll improve it. Thanks for the review. Liviu