On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Michal Rokos wrote:
> > |You're probably right - if programmer wants garbage he gets it... But I
> > |still think that setting proper len cost nothing and could make some
> > |tired programmers happier.
> > Cost is nothing, I agree.  But if a programmer gets a zero length
> > string even when I specified len to str_new(), he/she may confuse
> > sometimes.
> 	I think it's correct - lenght is zero, but capa is correct. The
> reality is that string, that you created, is 0 bytes long - not X. So
> when you do rb_str_cat (or any other) you'll get the right* result.

the point of str_new(0,n) is to be able to create a string of a known
length but for which the contents are not "known" in advance, or at least,
not in a buffer. Once you fill the n chars of the string object you just
allocated, then the creation process is finished and you don't have to set
the len again! A len is not a capa and a capa is not a len.

Disclaimer: i don't know shit

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju