Hi Joseph, > Date: 2026-08-03 19:45:06+0000 > From: Joseph Myers <[email protected]> > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2026, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > That's basically how it went with 'gets': The community realized it is a > > > bad > > > function, then the implementors started to withdraw it. > > > > Here's an interesting story about gets(3), which I learnt recently: > > The C Committee didn't remove it from ISO C. It was the Austin Group > > that triggered some unusual process within ISO for overriding the > > C Committee, and removed it in a secret meeting. > > That sounds like a myth. You can easily read the October 2009 minutes > (N1475), item 4.27 "On The Removal of gets() (N1420) (Stoughton)". You > can also see C99 issue 0332 that resulted in the obsolescence in C99 TC3 > that was followed by the removal in C11.
It could very well be a myth. For the outsiders, it was the WG14 convenor who told us this story some days ago. Cheers, Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
