Hacker News Reader

Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

Off the top of my head (in D syntax):

    char[3] s = "abc";
    char* p = cast(char*)malloc(s.length + 4);
    assert(p != null);
    char[] a = p[0 .. s.length + 4];
    a[0 .. 3] = s[];
    a[3 .. 3+4] = "1234";

It's more verbose than necessary, but I wanted to illustrate the idea. Note how the allocation is turned into a dynamic array.

Note that my proposal is not for a new memory allocation scheme for C, just a way to map data onto arrays.

View on HN

You don't seem to understand heap vs. stack. The call to malloc() does a heap allocation, and the question was "without using the heap in any way". If it makes it conceptually easier, how about a solution where the string is simply a global variable? No malloc allowed.

I showed you how to do that in another reply.

You don't seem to understand who you are arguing with :-)

> You don't seem to understand heap vs. stack.

Please check who you are replying to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bright

WalterBright posted the following code snippet somewhere above:

     char foo[9]; foo[] = "abc"; foo[3..3+5] = "1234";

`foo` is an array. `foo[3..8]` is a slice, which is an object that does its own bounds-checking. I don't think the heap is used here.

Another explicit example:

  char foo[5] = "abcd"; // still NUL-terminated, carries length aswell
  char[] bar = foo[2..3]; // a fat pointer with length 1
  bar[0] = 'C';
  printf(foo); // abCd
  bar[1] = 'D'// ERROR!!! bar has length 1

Note that the array `foo` is now bounds-checked, which may affect backwards-compatibility. Also, `bar` is no longer null-terminated, which means you can't do printf on it.

Perfectionism is not engineering. Not finding a way to fix every use case that you can come up with is not an excuse to insist on unsafe features that are proven to be disasters in practice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com