Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Why is it dangerous?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why is it dangerous?

 
 
Flash Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
James Dow Allen wrote, On 14/08/08 08:22:

<snip>

> I've time to read very few Usenet groups these days.
> Are many as totally devoid of humor as c.l.c?


You say that but you are failing to spot some of the humour.

> Did anyone seriously think I was worried about the warning
> message? (I *do* use a simple 'grep -v' to remove
> one irrelevant gcc warning, but haven't bothered for
> the friendly "dangerous" message.)


Some people are concerned about completely clean builds (no warnings at
all) and it was not obvious to me (at least) whether you were or not.

<snip>

> Another poster implied that a reason gets() is "dangerous"
> is that it will disappear when the pedants take over
> libc!


That would be me (unless someone else posted a similar comment) and I
even put a smiley on it just in case you did not realise it was intended
as a humorous comment.

> Does anyone think any of us would have trouble
> writing our own gets() when it goes missing from libc?


No.

> (This would also be a trivial way to get rid of the
> "dangerous" message.) In fact, at the risk of encouraging
> the mob to Repeat_The_Obvious One_More_Time I'll put a
> gets implementation in the public domain right now:
>
> /* Not tested */
> char *gets(char *s)
> {
> s = fgets(s, 1000000, stdin);


The behaviour is not the same as gets if the buffer is larger than
1000000 bytes

<snip>

> Hmmm. Surprised that the pedants don't add a string length
> count to index() to deal with unterminated strings.
>


Must resist bait... must resist bait...

<snip>
--
Flash Gordon
The British one not the American Footballer
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Default User said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.

> >
> > Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
> > English.

>
> Such as?


Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation? If we're
going to harass people about "u" and "ur", then other such crap should
be frowned upon as well. If you absolutely can't bring yourself to use
the standard term "American", then write it out, as in, "many people
from the USA . . . ."




Brian



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ben Bacarisse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
Flash Gordon <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
<snip>
>> ... In fact, at the risk of encouraging
>> the mob to Repeat_The_Obvious One_More_Time I'll put a
>> gets implementation in the public domain right now:
>>
>> /* Not tested */
>> char *gets(char *s)
>> {
>> s = fgets(s, 1000000, stdin);

>
> The behaviour is not the same as gets if the buffer is larger than
> 1000000 bytes


or if INT_MAX < 1000000. fgets(s, INT_MAX, stdin) is probably the
best bet.

--
Ben.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Antoninus Twink
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
On 14 Aug 2008 at 20:06, Default User wrote:
> If we're going to harass people about "u" and "ur", then other such
> crap should be frowned upon as well.


Say, here's a radical suggestion: why not just not harass people at all?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Default User said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> >> Default User said:
> >>
> >> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.
> >> >
> >> > Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
> >> > English.
> >>
> >> Such as?

> >
> > Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

>
> It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
> of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).


I don't believe to be well-established at all. It's also insulting to
many Americans. But you knew that already.

> Since you're being so picky about language usage, please learn to
> type "abbreviation" consistently. Your current success rate seems to
> be 50%, which is a touch low, wouldn't you say?


Are you seriously going to nitpick about a typo? That's pretty weak.

> > then other such crap should
> > be frowned upon as well. If you absolutely can't bring yourself to
> > use the standard term "American",

>
> To what standard does the term "American" conform?


A tradition of at least a few hundred years. In both the USA and the
UK. That includes every dictionary of the English language. But you
knew that.

> then write it out, as in, "many people
> > from the USA . . . ."

>
> I find "Usanian" more convenient, thanks.


People who write "u" and "ur" find it to be more convenient as well.

You know that at least one person your choice to be offensive. You are
of course free to post as you wish. As am I. We'll have this discussion
(at least my first part) each time. It's up to you how you want to
approach things.



Brian
 
Reply With Quote
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Default User said:


> > I don't believe to be well-established at all.

>
> Since you're being so picky about language, perhaps you should
> examine the grammar of that sentence more closely.


Are you claiming that Usanians was a typo? If not, then it is
irrelevant. I will freely admit that I don't proofread as well as I
should. I won't respond to any others you may find.


> > Are you seriously going to nitpick about a typo? That's pretty weak.

>
> Are you seriously going to nitpick about an accurate descriptive
> term? That's even weaker.


It's not accurate, it's not even sensible. USA is a recognized
abbreviation. "Usa" is not a word. To further hang a suffix off it is
ridiculous. It looks silly, and you offend Americans. Whether you want
to admit it or not, the typical term for people from the only nation
with American in its name is "American".

> > In both the USA and the
> > UK. That includes every dictionary of the English language. But you
> > knew that.

>
> Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and in any case lag
> behind neologisms by a number of years.


That's true, but they're the best we have. It also doesn't make all
neologisms sensible. Further it doesn't address the offensive nature of
some.

> If you don't like my use of
> language, well, neither are you under any obligation to read my
> articles or provide me with help.


I'm also free to complain about your offensive usage.



Brian
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
"Default User" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Default User said:
>> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> >> Default User said:
>> >> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> >> >> Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
>> >> > English.
>> >>
>> >> Such as?
>> >
>> > Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

>>
>> It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
>> of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).

>
> I don't believe to be well-established at all. It's also insulting to
> many Americans. But you knew that already.

[...]

Personally, I know of a grand total of one American who's offended by
it.

Speaking as an American myself, I find the term "Usanian" slightly
odd, mildly amusing, easily understandable, quite unambiguous, and
utterly inoffensive.

I can also understand why residents of North and/or South America
outside the USA might be annoyed by the assumption that the term
"American" applies only to residents of the USA. I'm not interested
in debating whether they *should* find it annoying, but I can
certainly see a rationale for it.

I can see no such rationale for being offended by "Usanians".

The problem, I think, is that the USA is one of the very few countries
whose name doesn't refer specifically to its location, but that does
refer to a larger region within which it's located, but without
acknowleding the subset relationship. "Mexico", for example, is
unambiguous. "South Korea" isn't all of Korea, but the name
acknowledges that.

It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider giving
Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be quite an
elegant solution.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
Keith Thompson wrote:


> It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider giving
> Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be quite an
> elegant solution.


Hmmmm, no.



Brian
 
Reply With Quote
 
jameskuyper@verizon.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]
> Default User said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> >> Default User said:

....
> >> > Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?
> >>
> >> It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
> >> of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).

....
> > It's also insulting to many Americans. But you knew that already.

>
> No, it isn't,


Yes, it is. I understand and sympathize with the reasons why you don't
want to use the term American to describe my fellow citizens. However,
I can assure you that the overwhelming majoring of them are not even
aware of the issue, and most of them would not sympathize even if they
were aware. They would consider it insulting that you called us by any
name other than the "correct" one. They would be just as insulted as a
British citizen might be at being called an Englishman, if he wasn't
actually English (most Americans don't even know that such a thing is
even possible, much less understand why it might be considered
insulting). Also, for that particular alternative, many of us, myself
included, would wonder whether a pun somehow connected with the word
"insane" was intended.
[/OT]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2008
Richard Heathfield wrote:


> What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't
> understand that at all.


Well Ricky, if you don't understand after what I've told you, I suppose
I won't able to explain it. I guess you could take it on faith.





Brian
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Cisco 2611 and Cisco 1721 : Why , why , why ????? sam@nospam.org Cisco 10 05-01-2005 08:49 AM
Why, why, why??? =?Utf-8?B?VGltOjouLg==?= ASP .Net 6 01-27-2005 03:35 PM
Why Why Why You HAVE NO IDEA MCSE 31 04-24-2004 06:40 PM



Advertisments