At Mon, 29 Mar 2021 00:02:58 -0300, "'alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org'" <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote in > On 2021-Mar-29, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote: > > > > (Hey, what the heck is that "Z" at the end of the message? I thought > > > the error ended right at the \x00 ...) > > > > We'll investigate these issues. > > For what it's worth, I did fix this problem in patch 0005 that I > attached. The problem was that one "continue" should have been "break", > and also a "while ( .. )" needed to be made an infinite loop. It was > easy to catch these problems once I added (in 0006) the check that the > bytes consumed equal message length, as I had suggested a couple of > weeks ago :-) I also changed the code for Notice, but I didn't actually > verify that one. > > > > 2. The < and > characters are not good for visual inspection. I > > > replaced them with F and B and I think it's much clearer. Compare: > > > I think the second one is much easier on the eye. > > > > Yes, agreed. I too thought of something like "C->S" and "S->C" > > because client and server should be more familiar for users than > > frontend and backend. > > Hmm, yeah, that's a reasonable option too. What do others think?
It's better to be short as far as it is clear enough. Actually '<' to 'F' and '>' to 'B' is clear enough to me. So I don't need a longer notation. O(ut) and (I)n also makes sense to me. Rather, "C->S", and "S->C" are a little difficult to understand at a glance regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
