[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs)
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
> > Not very easily. The options are to a) have the caller malloc a copy
> > of the string and pass it in, or b) malloc X buffers of unknown size ahead
> > of time and pass those in. The memory management gets tricky.
>
> What about a strdup() in split?
I could, but I really think all memory allocation and de-allocation
should be done at the same level, so-to-speak. I've never been a big fan
of strdup. I'd like to get other people's opinions on this (especially
since I see no compelling reason to do this, but I know it won't get into
CVS until it gets your approval ;p).
> > Which general purpose method?
>
> cut_comment
*nod*
> > It is up to the caller to allocate the array of pointers. And, yes,
> > they are pointers to buf. Otherwise it becomes a nightmare trying to do
> > several small mallocs and frees along the way. I'm open to suggestions on
> > another way to do this, but I find it just easier to accept the fact that
> > the original buffer you pass in will be modified. If you want an original
> > copy of it, make it before you call split. How is this restriction bad?
>
> Either the caller allocates the memory and pass the size down to split:
>
> char buffer[10][50];
> ...
> split(...,buffer,10,50);
>
> or split allocates the memory and the caller has the free it.
>
> char *strings[10];
> ...
> n=split(...,strings,10);
> ...
> for(i=0;i<n;i++)
> free(strings[i]);
>
> IMHO the first one is nicer.
I agree. But I don't think we should place limitations on the size of
the buffer(s) in split, which is what your version does.
On a side note, I'm going to remove the "automatically removes
whitespace" implementation, and require the caller to pass a "\S" as a
token if they want to split on whitespace. If they want to remove
whitespace surrounding other split tokens, they would pass in a "\s". A
"\S" implies "\s".
split("\s,", buf, args, 5);
will correctly parse
Alphabet,Iron Working,Pottery, The Wheel
Comments?
-jdm
"You don't give blood then take it back again
We're all deserving of something more"
- "Grievance"
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129
Email: justin@xxxxxxxxxxx
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs, (continued)
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs, Gregory Berkolaiko, 2001/09/20
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs, Arien Malec, 2001/09/20
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs, Justin Moore, 2001/09/20
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs, Reinier Post, 2001/09/20
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs, Justin Moore, 2001/09/22
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs, Raimar Falke, 2001/09/22
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Justin Moore, 2001/09/22
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Raimar Falke, 2001/09/23
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Justin Moore, 2001/09/23
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Raimar Falke, 2001/09/24
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs),
Justin Moore <=
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Raimar Falke, 2001/09/25
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Justin Moore, 2001/09/26
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Raimar Falke, 2001/09/26
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Justin Moore, 2001/09/26
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Ross W. Wetmore, 2001/09/26
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Raimar Falke, 2001/09/27
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Ross W. Wetmore, 2001/09/27
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Reinier Post, 2001/09/28
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Ross W. Wetmore, 2001/09/28
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Split patch (was Re: [RFC PATCH] init_techs), Reinier Post, 2001/09/30
|
|