Recent, maybe. Thorough-- nope. Among other things, the author suggests replacing strlcpy with a new function of his own design, which returns the length of the target string rather than the length of the source string. It's not clear that programmers would find this an easier to use API. It is clear that it would make error checking more difficult. No thanks.
> Note that i didn't say that the commonly used alternatives (e.g., strn*)
> were that much better, it's just that strl* are *not* the proper
> solution either.
This is the crux of the issue. People are trying to make the situation better and you are getting in the way with "but it doesn't meet my criterion for absolute perfection." It's not even clear that *any* C string manipulation function could meet your amorphous, unspoken criterion.
Meanwhile, the rest of us just emulate strlcpy with snprintf.