Subject: Re: Slightly modifying fgetln(3) semantics
To: None <tech-userlevel@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Guenther Grau <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 09/18/1997 17:21:05
Hi Luke an others :-),

[... excellent problemdescription deleted ...]

> I believe that a better approach is to modify fgetln(3) so that the
> string *is* NUL terminated, even if the length field isn't modified to
> take this into account. Examination of the source code for fgetln(3)
> Are they any comments or objections to enabling this functionality?

I agree with your idea!
The only problem might be third party code. What does posix
say about this function?