Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jas
From: jas@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Shankland)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: retiring gets(3)
Message-ID: <26901@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 20 Nov 88 23:29:00 GMT
References: <1988Nov14.220842.3980@utstat.uucp> <8902@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1988Nov16.184238.16375@utzoo.uucp> <8915@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jas@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Jim Shankland)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 13

In article <8915@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
[In effect:  sometimes gets() really is safe, or sufficient:  e.g., in programs
whose input is known a priori, or in small, one-shot test programs, or ....]

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

But how much harder do you end up working without gets()?  Using fgets()
isn't exactly 5 years of hard labor.  gets() just doesn't seem to
provide much added value, and is almost never safe.  (I've certainly
written some small, one-shot test programs that ended up being so useful
that lots of people had the opportunity to gag at my "one-shot" code.)

Jim