nmh-workers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail

2017-08-28 12:25:49
Hi,

David wrote:
Ken wrote:
Are you recoiling in horror, or think it's a good idea?  I can't
tell :-)

:-)  I think it's a good idea.  m_getfld() and its clients are
difficult to maintain and expand.

It's not so much m_getfld()'s maintenance as getting it working.  :-)
I've a really pathological email here from my Aunt Dolly that makes
every version of nmh I can get to build access free(3)'d memory.  Don't
know how she does it.  There doesn't seem much point trying to patch
m_getfld() and friends yet again, especially when this particular
problem won't be hit in practice.

Meanwhile, I kind of agree with kre's, was it, comment about flex being
overkill.  I've been wondering if a next small step would be keeping
m_getfld()'s weird interface for all the many callers, but have a new
implementation that never un-gets more than one byte.  I think it's
possible, and with just stdio.h tracking buffering.  It should make the
internal logic much simpler, so it ideally can be "seen" to be correct.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>