From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: usotsuki@buric.co (Steve Nickolas)
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:34:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [TUHS] History of strncpy
In-Reply-To: <20130124060205.GQ24498@bitmover.com>
References: <1301231756.AA27240@ivan.Harhan.ORG>
 <B8FAD0BB-8796-4A0F-B441-0688405736E9@ronnatalie.com>
 <20130123214651.GF22559@mercury.ccil.org>
 <20130124060205.GQ24498@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1301240132540.3249@Ryou-VM1.yauncle.net>

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Larry McVoy wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:46:51PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>> Ronald Natalie scripsit:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I like the idea: essentially it's about reading or writing an array
>> of a specified type.
>
> As a SPARC guy (in the past), I think it may have had something to do
> about alignment.
>
> That said, I hate the fread/fwrite interfaces.  We're fixing them in
> our stdio.  freadn(f, buf, n).
>

That syntax makes sense.  Though you'd prolly need a "#define 
fread(b,s,n,f) freadn(f,b,((s)*(n)))", right?  For backward compatibility.