Re: [Libclc-developers] Re: clc_ultostr(3)

[Hallvard B F. <h.b...@us...>]

Jan Engelhardt writes:
>> 2) what to do if the buffer is not large enough:
> 
> already said that... like snprintf(buf, 3, "%d", 234567);

And as I said, snprintf doesn't _silently_ truncate like your latest
clc_ultostr does.  I want an error indication.  Or a descision not to
return an error, but I hope not.  See below:

>>   Silently truncate, or generate a truncated string but return failure?
>>   If the latter, should it return NULL or should we change the return
>>   type so it returns the length of the string or -1 at truncation?  (I
>>   think it's ugly to return NULL at failure but still have a meaningful
>>   output, but maybe that's just me?)

>> 5) BTW, I'd like (2 <= base && base < 64): characters '0-9A-Za-z_='
>>   or something.  That's because I expect I'd usually use *printf to
>>   print normal numbers, but could use clc_ultostr with a large base
>>   when I want to generate textual IDs.  Base 64 is nice for that, which
>>   is why I added "_" and "=" (two characters that hopefully have no
>>   special meaning in filesystems and shell commands).
> 
> No, as we _may_ want to express 254 (decimal) in uh... (0x)FE as
> well as (0x)fe.

You mean to give a flag for uppercase/lowercase in the output as an
argument to the function?  Otherwise that is not relevant: The function
will always produce uppercase when the base argument <= 36, the
lowercase variant will only be produced for base > 36.

-- 
Hallvard