Comment by saghm

>> I've always wondered at the motivatons of the various string routines in C - every one of them seems to have some huge caveat which makes them useless.

> Which, to me, sounded like it was a surprise that anything written in C could be a success at all given that something as basic as the string handling (which is pretty fundamental) is bordering on useless.

I guess to me that seems like pretty big logical leap. It seems equally plausible that they consider C successful and not going anywhere, so they care about improving the way strings are handled (and therefore gave an example of something they would consider better). Your response seems to be trying to defend against an implication that wasn't apparent in what you were responding to, so it wasn't clear at all to me what point you were trying to make.