Re: [evolution-patches] [Fwd: [composer, mailer] #59490 Signature is prefixed with '> " in replies]

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 12:15 +0200, Radek Doulík wrote:
>     On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 18:02 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> >         
> >         I dont think you want to do this, this will stuff up the 'is the message changed' state.
> >     
>     it doesn't leave the changed flag up (it's cleared later). it also speeds up the composer start as you don't have to dup whole message content. so I think it's better to do it that way.

That really wont make it any slower.

But sure if it doesn't mess up undo, sure.  e.g. if you reply/hit new and hit close and it closes with no question.

> >         The embedded NUL character issue should be trivial to fix.
> >     
>     well, I tried to find the place, but I was soon lost in the all the formatting stuff.

So how exactly does this code make any difference?

The old code does strlen() on the content, the same as the new code.  It thus can't possibly include any embedded NUL, should one even exist in the string passed in.  Unless its that code being removed which added the NUL.

--

Michael Zucchi <notzed ximian com> "born to die, live to work, it's all downhill from here" Novell's Evolution and Free Software Developer