Wed Jun 10 20:37:14 CEST 2009
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:58:31 am Michael Radford wrote:
> Kostis Sagonas writes:
> > You are so kind. I personally think it is terrible!
> > The issue has been discussed before, both in meetings and in this
> > mailing list, and my understanding is that there are actually
> > applications out there which depend on this "feature" (i.e.,
> > binary_to_term/1 succeeding when there is a prefix of the binary which
> > can be turned into some Erlang term).
> I personally don't see what's so terrible about this behavior.
> The external term format has to be self-delimiting anyway for safety.
> All types are prefixed with a header, including a length if
> variable-length, so it's not possible for a prefix of a valid encoded
> term to also be a valid encoded term.
> So behaving "correctly" in this case would just mean a check for extra
> bytes after the term has already been successfully decoded -- a pop quiz
> to force the programmer to construct a binary with the exact length of
> the term data.
> The only apparent benefit would be that we all get to feel more
> comfortable that binary_to_term is the exact mathematical inverse of
> term_to_binary. But there may be a real cost in forcing the
> construction of an extra binary.
It would be fine if there was a binary_to_term that returned the trailing
binary so that we could continue to decode the following terms.
Anthony Shipman Mamas don't let your babies
grow up to be outsourced.
More information about the erlang-questions