|
|
On Mar 31, 3:47 am, santosh <santosh....@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
> > Strncat is supposed to be better than strcat for some reason
> > I've read.
>
> It does something different to what it's name would suggest. We have had
> innumerable threads dealing with this topic. Just do a Google search.
>
> > Is this because of a potential buffer overflow?
>
> Well, it can be used with that aim, in which case it leaves an array of
> char instead of a string in the destination.
>
> > I have compiled properly and used strlen too and I just wonder what is
> > the need to return a strlen?
>
> > Has anyone used quite abit anyway the strlen function?
>
> You are not making any sense. Are you asking why strlen exists? It
> should be obvious, even to you. How else do you find the length of a
> zero terminated string?
Can you or someone else please explain why everyone is still replying
to this "Bill Cunningham' troll?
It's clear he is a troll. It's been noted countless times and he
*never* replies to the posts that call him a troll.
He always choses to take things out of context, to make
uncomprehensible sentences and ambiguous statements.
It's a troll. So.. why?
|
|