any reason to *not* support hex escapes?

Bernhard Fischer rep.nop at aon.at
Sun Jul 2 18:23:27 UTC 2006


On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 12:34:00PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:36:12AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> >
>> >libbb/process_escape_sequence.c:
>> >--------------------------------
>> >
>> >#define WANT_HEX_ESCAPES 1
>> >...
>> >#ifdef WANT_HEX_ESCAPES ...
>> >
>> >etc etc.
>> >
>> >  any reason to not support this feature unconditionally?
>>
>> libbb/Config.in ?
>>
>> Not sure if these are worth exposing in the menu-thing. Leaving them
>> in the file so one can hand-tweak if needed is about as good for me
>> but admittedly limits the number of people who may turn it off if
>> they know that they will not need it.
>
>but is there any obvious reason why someone would explicitly *not*
>want that feature in the first place?

size / creeping featureitis.
>
>also, given how that routine works, shouldn't the routine return an
>unsigned char rather than just a plain char?  after all, it's quite
>possible to be handed an escape sequence of \377, no?

Could very well be, i admit that i didn't look. Please fix this aspect
if it is not ok as it is.



More information about the busybox mailing list