Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: retiring gets(3)
Message-ID: <8915@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 18 Nov 88 02:43:30 GMT
References: <1988Nov14.220842.3980@utstat.uucp> <8902@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1988Nov16.184238.16375@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <1988Nov16.184238.16375@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <8902@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>>... In fact they're wrong.  I routinely use gets() in
>>an utterly safe manner...
>Well, "utterly safe" if you're always very careful that part A of your
>program preserves the length limits that part B is relying on.  Personally
>I prefer slightly more robust programming, especially when there's no
>significant difference in convenience or efficiency.

Why work harder when gets() does exactly what one needs?

Another safe use is for small "one-shot" test programs etc. that are
to be used only by persons and procedures that will not exceed the
limits.  I've written quite a few of these over the years and they
have never had their buffers overrun, because nobody who is in a
position to do so (me, usually) has the least interest in doing so.