On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:49:35PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> My guess would be that the reason for the paranoia field is exactly that
> they wanted to allow for the possibility of a struct getting extended
> without them noticing!
I assumed the same thing.
> I guess it would make sense to at least mention in a comment what structs
> are supposed to be used, but I don't really see any benefit in writing
> them out.
I did remove the struct definitions in order to avoid having an outdated
definition left over time. This is most likely to get unoticed until
someone will try to change the code and fight for hours before figuring
out that the field order is not up to date.
As far as I have been able to count, 256 bytes is most likely to be
enough, but we can put 1024 if people feel safer with a larger value.
Adding the struct names as comment seem like a good idea.
Cheers,
--
Jérémy Bobbio .''`.
lunar@debian.org : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism
`. `'`
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature