At 10:44 AM 1/5/2002 -0800, Jim Winstead wrote: >On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 08:22:24PM +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > You're missing the point. In order to minimize the amount of API misuse of > > the str*cat() family of functions we decided only to use the ones I > > mentioned, everywhere. I am sure that you're code is correct but all > places > > should use strlcat()/strlcpy() if they are using the str* family of > > functions. > >in all due respect, i think you're missing my point. wordwrap() copies >chunks from the middle of the source string to the end of the >destination string. neither strlcpy() nor strlcat() is useful in this >situation, because all they take is the length of the destination >buffer, not a length of characters to copy from the source. > > char *source = "this is my string"; > strncpy(dest, source+5, 5); // copy 'is my' to dest.
Yes you are right. In this case you should use memcpy(). >i guess you could use strlcat() if you kept track of the current end >position of the destination string and then lied about the size of the >destination string so only the right number of characters were copied >from the source, but that seems a rather obtuse way to do it. Nah, it's not meant to be used that way. >in any case, i'm working on a memcpy()-based rewrite. i don't know that >it is really useful for wordwrap() to be binary-safe, but that will be >one of the side-effects. :) Even better :) Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
