Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!cvedc!gssc!timr
From: timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: New 'n' Improved comp.lang.c FAQ List
Message-ID: <6630@gssc.UUCP>
Date: 3 Apr 91 18:53:36 GMT
References: <910401.0xf001@etiquette.uu.net> <1991Apr1.203024.19679@unlv.edu> <3739@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Inc. Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 28

In article <3739@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> fguille@France.Sun.COM writes:
:>bls@u02.svl.cdc.com (Brian Scearce) writes:
:>    Almost, but not quite, Mr. Grover.  The *really* correct version of this:
:>            char *itoa(int i) {
:>                static char retbuf[5];         /* biggest int: 32768 */
:>                sprintf(retbuf, "%d", i);
:>                return retbuf;
:>              }
:>Should'nt the *really really correct* version allocate an extra character
:>in the retbuf array for the end of string delimiter \0 ???
:>
:>I will just say that a *just a little bit more correct* version should read:
:>
:>       static char retbuf[6];         /* biggest int: 32768 */

Shouldn't the *really truly one-true-God correct* version of this read:

        static char retbuf[6];         /* biggest int: 32767 */
    
And isn't this really really just a little bit more silly than we all need?



-- 
timr@gssc.gss.com	Tim N Roberts, CCP	Graphic Software Systems
						Beaverton, OR

This is a very long palindrome. .emordnilap gnol yrev a si sihT