On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:07:38 -0600, McKown, John wrote: >OPINION TIME! > >The "safe" versions are not safer than using some of the others which include >the length of the destination buffer. Such as strncpy, strncmp, and so on. The >strn... functions are multiplatform and standard. The str..._s functions, from >what I have read on the Web, are a Microsoft invention. They are not ISO or >ANSI standard functions, but are being considered. And, according to one >person, were invented by MS strictly as a way to make it more difficult to >port code using them to other systems. > I suppose M$ could argue that there's some advantage (but what?) in leaving the target buffer unmodified in the failure case.
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
