Re: Bug/Gross InEfficiency in HeathField's fgetline program

"Richard" <rgrdev@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
7ks805-0k6.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Charlie Gordon" <news@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

"William Hughes" <wpihughes@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
1194439578.941710.160010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 7, 5:48 am, "Charlie Gordon" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"William Hughes" <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de
news:
1194396428.646191.297...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When discussing definitions we are getting close to
"De Gustibus ...". However, in matters of taste there is no
obvious.

Not everything is a matter of taste, effectiveness matters: completely
unindented code is error prone, mis indented code is even worse, and
easy
to
misuse APIs are problematic as well.

And as none of your examples touches on definitions, I fail to see
your point. Not everything is a matter of taste, not even every
argument about definitions. However, many arguments about definitions
are about a matter of taste. In these arguments is is silly to say
that a given definition is "obvious".

My point is that it does not matter so much whether strncpy is a "string
function" or not, or what formal definition for "string functions" the
various regulars can or cannot agree upon after yet another session of
collaborative mental masturbation. More than just a matter of taste, the
problems with strncpy semantics and general misuse make it generally
detestable.

Only in your world where you seem to have a problem understanding the
clearly documented API.

Why are you playing stupid? I know damn well what strncpy does an what is
does not. I am refering to the vast majority of programmers who think they
do but don't and misuse it conspicuously. I am certainly not hinting that
you be part of them, but you are deliberately ignoring the issue.

--
Chqrlie.


.