Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:13265 comp.std.c:422 comp.unix.questions:9723
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: <string.h> vs <strings.h>
Message-ID: <14002@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 14 Oct 88 22:07:52 GMT
References: <456@mrsvr.UUCP> <8649@smoke.ARPA>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 21

In article <8649@smoke.ARPA> gwyn@smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn) writes:
><strings.h> doesn't declare strtok, so it is assumed to return int
>which is not compatible with the char * being assigned into.
><strings.h> was invented by Berkeley without regard for existing
>practice.

`Existing practise' being, at the time, either PWB or SysIII, neither
of which could be considered somehow more valid than BSD.  I know not
who was truly first, but one could just as easily say `<string.h> was
invented by AT&T USG without regard for existing practise.'  (Actually,
the places to look are V7 and 32/V.)

><string.h> is the official standard header for the str* functions,
>and it does declare strtok.

... and in the future, expect the 4BSD <strings.h> to simply be a
link to <string.h>.  In the meantime, just use the latter; it does
exist in 4.3BSD and is *now* clearly the best choice.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris