Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!necntc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: strcpy
Message-ID: <3365@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: 7 Apr 88 16:36:04 GMT
References: <7712@apple.Apple.Com> <7485@brl-smoke.ARPA> <10731@mimsy.UUCP> <7553@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7007@ki4pv.uucp>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 15

In article <7007@ki4pv.uucp> tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes:
>The real net effect of the X3J11 "improvement" of strcpy() definitions is
>likely to be that folks need to write their own version in order to be sure
>that something useful is done.

Fine with me.  If people use strcpy() only for non-overlapping areas, and roll
their own when they want to modify a string in place, then at least I can tell
the two apart when I read the code.

>A hundred programmers, each dreaming up his own name for strcpy() ...

Is this any worse than, say, everybody dreaming up his own name for "bool"%?
I suspect this is more common than in-place string shifting.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
%among those of us who don't like to overload "int" for this.