Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!leah!rds95
From: rds95@leah.Albany.Edu (Robert Seals)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: retiring gets(3) - Actually, omitting docs.
Summary: Don't
Message-ID: <1232@leah.Albany.Edu>
Date: 10 Nov 88 12:43:32 GMT
References: <1988Nov8.054845.23998@utstat.uucp> <8841@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: The University at Albany, Computer Services Center
Lines: 14

In article <8841@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <1988Nov8.054845.23998@utstat.uucp> geoff@utstat.uucp (Geoff Collyer) writes:
> >We need to get ... the next release from your favourite C vendor to
> >delete gets.
> 
> I think the appropriate treatment of gets() is to omit it from the
> documentation or ...

I suppose there might be reasons to do this, but 1) it smells real bad
already, and 2) is kinda dishonest, and 3) is annoying.
My objections to omitting documentation are mostly moral, while my objection
to gets() et al. is functionally borne out...

rob