Re: [Groff] Potential buffer overrun in src/roff/troff/input.cpp

[Keith Marshall]

On 24/09/14 05:57, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> I believe I've matched the existing style of code layout, (which
>> isn't entirely to my personal taste), but is the comment style
>> acceptable?  (I've annotated my changes considerably more
>> comprehensively than the original).
> 
> I don't really mind, since it isn't consistent in the groff source.
> However, as far as I can see, you are adding *another* style, and I
> wonder whether there is a specific reason...

None, beyond a personal preference to use C-style for *block* comments,
(which are automatically formatted with an aligned column of leading
asterisks, as I have vim configured), reserving...

> Personally, I prefer `//' due to its uniform look.

...this for one line trailing comments, (in C++ only).  But no problem:
I'll change it to '//', since that seems more consistent with the style
used elsewhere, in the same file.

>> +static
>> +/**********
> 
> This I don't like.  Please move the `static' keyword below the
> comment.

Okay.  Should I also s?\*?/?g, on the lead-in to the function header
comment block, (in addition to introducing each subsequent line with the
C++ style '//')?

>> + * Returns (+ve) number of input characters stored into caller's
> 
> What is `+ve'?

I've always understood it to be universally accepted -- at least in
mathematical, scientific, and engineering circles -- as an abbreviation
for "positive".  In this context, I'm saying that for return values
greater than zero, the entire input line has been read, and returned
(possibly truncated); zero will indicate EOF, (with no collected input
to return), while a negative return value would be available, (but not
used currently), to indicate return of a partial input line, with more
retrievable on a subsequent read request.  Maybe the comment could be
more explicit?

-- 
Regards,
Keith.