gets() is dead

[jacob navia]

In the discussion group comp.std.c Mr Gwyn wrote:

< quote >

.... gets has been declared an obsolescent feature and
deprecated, as a direct result of my submitting a DR about it
(which originally suggested a less drastic change). (The official
impact awaits wrapping up the latest batch of TCs into a formal
amending document, and getting it approved and published.)

< end quote >

This is a very positive development. After all those discussions,
reason prevailed and we got rid of that wart.

It *is* possible to influence the comitee as it seems.
This is good news.

jacob

[Gregor H.]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:02:04 +0200, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:

>
< quote >

... gets has been declared an obsolescent feature and
deprecated, as a direct result of my submitting a DR about it
(which originally suggested a less drastic change). (The official
impact awaits wrapping up the latest batch of TCs into a formal
amending document, and getting it approved and published.)

< end quote >

R.I.P.
G.

--

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<Punkt>de

[Keith Thompson]

Gregor H. <nomail@invalid writes:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:02:04 +0200, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:

>< quote >

... gets has been declared an obsolescent feature and
deprecated, as a direct result of my submitting a DR about it
(which originally suggested a less drastic change). (The official
impact awaits wrapping up the latest batch of TCs into a formal
amending document, and getting it approved and published.)

< end quote >

R.I.P.

It's not dead yet. "Deprecated " merely means that it can be
considered for removal in the next version of the standard (which
presumably will be released some time after C99 actually catches on).
Conforming implementations are still required to support gets().

But this is the first step in getting rid of it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

Conforming implementations are still required to support gets().

But this is the first step in getting rid of it.

Surely the first step was the continual rage and horror expressed at its
prolonged survival, over a period of many years, by a great many
people, until ISO were embarrassed by their own inadequate explanations
for its continued existence?

Next stop: unmodified %s in scanf.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrites:

Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

>Conforming implementations are still required to support gets().

But this is the first step in getting rid of it.

Surely the first step was the continual rage and horror expressed at its
prolonged survival, over a period of many years, by a great many
people, until ISO were embarrassed by their own inadequate explanations
for its continued existence?

Yeah, that too.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Eric Sosman]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

>Conforming implementations are still required to support gets().

But this is the first step in getting rid of it.

Surely the first step was the continual rage and horror expressed at its
prolonged survival, over a period of many years, by a great many
people, until ISO were embarrassed by their own inadequate explanations
for its continued existence?

Next stop: unmodified %s in scanf.

.... along with unrestricted "[%", I guess. But there's no
compelling reason to remove either of them from sscanf() ...

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

>Conforming implementations are still required to support gets().

But this is the first step in getting rid of it.

Surely the first step was the continual rage and horror expressed
at its prolonged survival, over a period of many years, by a great
many people, until ISO were embarrassed by their own inadequate
explanations for its continued existence?

Next stop: unmodified %s in scanf.

Not needed, it can be handled. More useful would be inclusion of
generic routines for numerical input from streams without buffers.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland .ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfoc us.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline.net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Al Balmer]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:13:08 +0200, Gregor H. <nomail@invalid wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:02:04 +0200, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.r emcomp.frwrote:

You snipped one rather important line:

"In the discussion group comp.std.c Mr Gwyn wrote:"

>>
< quote >

... gets has been declared an obsolescent feature and
deprecated, as a direct result of my submitting a DR about it
(which originally suggested a less drastic change). (The official
impact awaits wrapping up the latest batch of TCs into a formal
amending document, and getting it approved and published.)

< end quote >

R.I.P.

Your editing made it appear that this was a quote from Jacob Navia.

Incidentally, I am unable to find this article with a Google Groups
search of comp.std.c. Does anyone have a link?

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Tor Rustad]

jacob navia wrote:

[...]

This is a very positive development. After all those discussions,
reason prevailed and we got rid of that wart.

These days, there should be no experienced C programmers using gets()
in security sensitive programs anyway, so I don't see the big fuzz about
this.

I have done a number of C code audits in safety-critical systems, and never
seen a single gets(), and didn't expect such a trivial bug either.

Who cares what students use?

I don't.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <Q4************ *********@telen or.com>,
Tor Rustad <to****@online. nowrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

[...]

>This is a very positive development. After all those discussions,
reason prevailed and we got rid of that wart.

It's the sort of thing that gets people in this ng hot.

>These days, there should be no experienced C programmers using gets()
in security sensitive programs anyway, so I don't see the big fuzz about
this.

I'd have said: no experienced C programmers using gets()
and left it at that. According to the ng regs, everything is "security
sensitive", so including that text is superfluouos.

>I have done a number of C code audits in safety-critical systems, and never
seen a single gets(), and didn't expect such a trivial bug either.

Who cares what students use?

I don't.

The anal-retentive freaks in this ng obviously do.
They've got nothing else in their lives, that much is clear.