On 22/09/2014, Evan Gates <evan.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: > One thing I'm not clear on, in your opinion does suckless software use > fixed or dynamic sized buffers/stacks? i.e. should it support > arbitrarily long lines? depth of nested blocks? number of write files? > I've seen some of both in software that seems suckless.
Arbitrarily long lines for sure, as one can write a sed script to the limits of a sed implementation but one can not know all future input a priori. > And lastly, somewhat off topic, is there a plan for a suckless regex > engine to use in sbase? Or will it continue to rely upon the libc's > engine (which causes different results on different systems)? Mitigating broken libc is the way of OpenSSL and insanity. On 23/09/2014, FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote: > You are on a good way, but keep in mind that you shouldn't move too far > away from POSIX. > Added functionality? Why not. But the key here is not to break what > works with strict implementations. This. As far as I care sed is legacy; we have ssam [1]. > After all, Mr. Gates, I hope you aren't a secret spy sent by Microsoft. ?! [1] http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man1/ssam.html
