Not to throw shade, just wishing that somebody here can understand. Whenever an input is reasonably long, an analyzing function will crash, and this PR aims to fix that with a mechanism that contradicts the maintainer’s understanding while a similar C implementation does not need this fix. Clearly, the maintainer has not heard a certain programming mantra…
Incidentally, this kind of passive-aggressive pressure is the kind of thing that might be considered a legitimate security threat, post xz. If you need to vent, vent in private. If “it works for you” but the maintainer is asking legitimate questions about the implementation, consider engaging with that in good faith and evaluating their questions with an open mind.
Which mantra is that? The ellipsis doesn’t offer a clue.
What mantra? I think this maintainer is doing the right thing here by trying to understand why this fix works.
You should always attempt to address the root cause of an issue instead of slapping band aid patches onto everything.
To me it looks like the maintainer is trying to find out what exactly is wrong. “this doesn’t happen in our C implementation” implies that there’s something wrong with the rust code specifically.
After the xz debacle, I think we should resist the temptation to rush maintainers into accepting code that they don’t fully understand.
Yeah, I’m just asking if anyone actually understands this facet.
There is no evidence that any human understands computers.
