James Carlson wrote: > Vladimir Kotal writes: >> I have somehow missed that sentence while adding the function to the >> list. It's certainly very weird to read sentence that right after the >> list containing strl*() functions. > > Now it's a little worse -- it refers to strl* instead of the others > (it's the other two that have trouble; not strl*) and it's also a > sentence fragment. I'll suggest this instead: > > "... all alter their first argument. Additionally, the > strcat() and strcpy() functions do not check for overflow of > the array."
Thanks. Less complicated often means more precise. > In any event, it's wordsmithing, which I thought or expected was > something the man page writers would chip in. (Or don't changes like > this go through them anymore ... ?) I am pretty sure some of them try to fix the wording, not sure if this instance would make them to do so if not explicitly requested. Current diff attached. Nico, could you please add it to the case materials ? (if you're ok with the changes) v. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: string_3C.diff Type: text/x-patch Size: 3403 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/on-discuss/attachments/20080801/dd164c7c/attachment.bin>
