Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Buffer contents well-defined after fgets() reaches EOF ?
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:54:24 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <20250217115424.00005704@yahoo.com>
References: <vo9g74$fu8u$1@dont-email.me>
	<vo9hlo$g0to$1@dont-email.me>
	<vo9khf$ggd4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vobf3h$sefh$2@dont-email.me>
	<vobjdt$t5ka$1@dont-email.me>
	<vobkd5$t7np$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250210124911.00006b31@yahoo.com>
	<86ldu9zxkb.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<20250214165108.00002984@yahoo.com>
	<20250214085627.815@kylheku.com>
	<voo6sc$3k640$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250215192911.0000793d@yahoo.com>
	<vorm2j$eag8$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250216104844.00000473@yahoo.com>
	<vot9u9$n1k4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:54:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee7e7fad350b4fa17c76e6ef979f8629";
	logging-data="1155721"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1nm2o25obf6O3fVc+kIqLv8BBtCZpr+M="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:waMuPFACiW38NKdw52MgN8jpEY0=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2249

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:14:31 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 16.02.2025 09:48, Michael S wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 04:29:20 +0100
> > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:  
> >>
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> I recall (in early C++ days when there wasn't yet a string type) to
> have based a set of string functions on the mem...() type functions
> (as opposed to the str...() type functions); it wasn't more difficult.
> Rather the effects had been (a) that we could operate binary strings,
> (b) that it was (slightly) faster code, and (c) that some code could
> get even simpler.
> 
> 
> Janis
> 

Your first hand experience appears to match mine. 
Then, why *shrug*? Shouldn't you say *nod* or *noddle* ?