Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!shelby!csli!poser
From: poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: strncpy
Keywords: strncpy null termination
Message-ID: <11509@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 21 Dec 89 10:09:27 GMT
Sender: poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser)
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 19


	Why is it that strncpy(3) does not null terminate
the string if the length of the source string is greater than
or equal to the length of the target buffer? I cannot think of
any circumstances in which this behaviour is desirable, and
always end up null terminating it myself. The only case in
which a non-null-terminated string might be useful would be
one in which a different representation for strings (e.g.
descriptors) is used, in which case the use of str(n)cpy would
not be appropriate anyhow. It seems to me that the behaviour
of strncpy provides: (a) a source of bugs for people who don't
bother to arrange null-termination themselves; (b) extra work for
those who take care; or, (c) just enough of a pain to be unsafe and
use strcpy(3).

	So I claim that strncpy is mis-designed and should
null-terminate. Any comments?

						Bill