Re: lynx-dev lynx2.8.5dev.14h.patch.gz

[Leonid Pauzner]

8-Apr-2003 08:56 Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 04:33:02PM +0400, Leonid Pauzner wrote:
>> 8-Apr-2003 08:13 Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>
>> >> Reading your patch (especially in LYMainLoop.c area),
>> >> I am courious about the possibility of
>> >>        (doc->post_data != NULL) *but* (isBEmpty(doc->post_data) == TRUE)
>> >>
>> >> currently in lynx.
>> >> IMHO, the invariant "post_data is NULL, or not NULL with len >0"
>> >> could easily be achieved somethere in HText_SibmitForm - the only place
>> >> where post_data is really changed.
>>
>> > yes - that's a possible problem with the change
>> > (a form that has no data to post).
>>
>> Is there a case? (empty post data really sent with POST method)???

> I don't know (it doesn't seem reasonable - which is why I said "possible").

And this is you, who rewrote SubmitForm recently;)

>> > I guess we need a flag such as "have_post_data" to cover this situation.
>>
>> Better, use `post_data' as a pointer to some struct (more members).

> it _is_ a pointer.  The isBEmpty() macro is hiding that.

I mean
 struct {
        bstring* data;
        char* post_content_type;
        ...
        }
and macros: free, copy, compare
(joke)



; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden