| |||||||||||||
The ups and downs of strlcpy()The ups and downs of strlcpy()Posted Jul 20, 2012 10:09 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435)In reply to: The ups and downs of strlcpy() by nix Parent article: The ups and downs of strlcpy()
Ah, I thought we were just talking about the rationale for getting accepted into glibc or not... Was it just that snprintf() was accepted by POSIX/ISO, so glibc was forced to accept it as a standard, while strl*() wasn't?
(Log in to post comments)
The ups and downs of strlcpy() Posted Jul 20, 2012 12:44 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Ah, right. From a *user's* perspective we cannot use open_memstream() et al because they are not portable. From a *library developer's* perspective we shouldn't introduce strlcpy() because it sucks and everyone should just use open_memstream(). :)
Obviously the only real solution is to write your own string abstraction using counted strings or whatever floats your boat...
|
|||||||||||||