From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ron@ronnatalie.com (Ronald Natalie) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:39:47 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] History of strncpy In-Reply-To: <1301231756.AA27240@ivan.Harhan.ORG> References: <1301231756.AA27240@ivan.Harhan.ORG> Message-ID: It's really in my mind the opposite of C and unix in design. It's not very consistent. Why does the FILE structure go as the first argument in some functions (similar to the way UNIX tends to do things) and at the end of others? Why on earth did they preserve the silly fread/fwrite size feature that just multiplies the two middle args together long after it was realized that portability doesn't demand making such a distinction. Why is there no consistency in return values? It's was poorly thought out as the portable I/O library (which apparently never really got ported\ anywhere) and just condified in all it's ugliness. On Jan 23, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Michael Spacefalcon wrote: > Ronald Natalie wrote: > >> I suspect strcpy arrived with the "portable I/O library", an abomination >> that eventually evolved into the stdio library and to this day is still >> stinking up the standard C language. > > What's so bad about stdio? That's a genuine question - I've never had > a reason to dislike stdio... > > SF > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs