On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:34:13AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:21:31PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: ...
+ * virBufferURIEncodeString: + * @buf: the buffer to append to + * @str: the string argument which will be URI-encoded + * + * Append the string to the buffer. The string will be URI-encoded + * during the append (ie any non alpha-numeric characters are replaced + * with '%xx' hex sequences). + * + * Returns 0 successful, -1 in case of internal or API error. + */ +int +virBufferURIEncodeString (virBufferPtr buf, const char *str) +{ + int grow_size = 0; + const char *p; + unsigned char uc; + const char *hex = "0123456789abcdef"; + + for (p = str; *p; ++p) { + /* Want to leave only strict 7 bit ASCII alphanumerics ... */ + if ((*p >= '0' && *p <= '9') || + (*p >= 'a' && *p <= 'z') || + (*p >= 'A' && *p <= 'Z')) ... + for (p = str; *p; ++p) { + if ((*p >= '0' && *p <= '9') || + (*p >= 'a' && *p <= 'z') || + (*p >= 'A' && *p <= 'Z'))
Hi Rich,
What do you think of using this?
isascii (*p) && isalnum (*p)
I have learned to be very cautious of the is* macros because they tend to be local dependant whichis usually really not what you would like or expect. In that case this may work, but explicit ranges are 100% clear about what you intend to accept or not, that's why I usually prefer them.
You're right that we shouldn't use isalnum here. However, we shouldn't use inequality comparisons, either. While 0 <= c <= 9 is guaranteed to be ok for the digits, the a..z and A..Z ranges need not be contiguous, i.e., with EBCDIC:
Seriously who gives a damn about EBCDIC anymore. This just makes it totally unreadable. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|