Give me a break

[Tom S]

Walter Bright wrote:
> For a more recent example, 3122 contained a patch that was marked as 
> complete and tested, but it had two serious bugs (did not check that a 
> filename was supplied, and did not check for file write errors) and an 
> unnecessary hardcoded OS dependency (on path lengths). These aren't hard 
> to fix, and I merged in the patch with fixes, I'm just trying to say 
> that things are not as simple as just apply patches.

Guilty as charged. Sorry about that. I didn't consider the case where 
someone would not provide a file name and didn't realize that write 
errors were an issue in this case. I guess I'm used to I/O code throwing 
exceptions when something goes wrong ;)

The MAX_PATH+2 was probably plain stupid of me. I wanted to hardcode it 
to '256' but then thought 'oh, MAX_PATH+2 would be better!', both of 
which were braindead considering that I've just checked that filename 
ops in DMD use dynamic allocation for this purpose. Please let me know 
the next time I commit a crime like this and I'll fix it gladly! I 
promise my next patch will be better :P

Thanks for folding it in! *g*


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3tic on #D freenode