Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!csli!gandalf
From: gandalf@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Juergen Wagner)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v05i053: A "safe" replacement for gets()
Message-ID: <6508@csli.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 20 Nov 88 06:19:24 GMT
Reply-To: wagner@arisia.xerox.com (Juergen Wagner)
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 37

I am wondering how long the discussion will last... The alternatives were:

o  Nuke gets()
   this will break the standard and a number of programs.

o  Don't use gets()
   Probably the best suggestion. Everybody who doesn't like gets, should
   just stop using it.

o  # define gets(s) fgets(...)
   sizeof returns sizeof(char *) if the buffer is not an array. That will
   cause unexpected effects. :-)

o  replace gets by something more intelligent
   We arrive at fgets. The "more intelligent" will certainly mean some kind
   of overflow checking. That's already available in fgets.

o  leave everything as it is

Well, this discussion reminds me of the "rm *" discussions which come up
every four months or so. The result: umpteen plus one 'best' solutions to
the problem. UNIX happens to provide very powerful tools, and nobody keeps
the super-user from putting a /bin/rm -fr / into his/her .login but that's
not the point: The question is: How do some people under some circumstances
protect themselves against themselves? The answer is: It depends! Probably
all of the above answers are optimal in some sense - in some situation where
you exactly know the file format, gets is just what you want. In other cases,
the #define allows a shorthand for the overflow checking version. In yet other
cases you may need a wrapper complaining when the line is actually longer than
you thought it would be. And so on....

All that is, of course, my personal opinion.
make flame | mail wagner@arisia.xerox.com

-- 
Juergen Wagner		   			gandalf@csli.stanford.edu
						 wagner@arisia.xerox.com