Re: Secure C library

"Chris Hills" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:zBjuDyCuk0IDFABk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> In article <1fydncRFtYZzpr7eRVnytQ@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, P.J. Plauger
> <pjp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>"Chris Hills" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:yoy+ZuApCtIDFATy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>> In article <1126020471.727423.151150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> Robert Gamble <rgamble99@xxxxxxxxx> writes
>>>>
>>>>I understand the issues being addressed, but I really think the current
>>>>proposal uglies up the language, is redundant, goes against the spirit
>>>>of C and probably won't actually do much to make software more secure.
>>>>I wonder how many other people feel the same way.
>>>>
>>>>Robert Gamble
>>>
>>> Many people feel that way. In fact there have been moves to have it
>>> named something (anything) other than Secure C.
>>
>>More than moves. WG14 has already concluded that the word "secure"
>>doesn't belong in the title of the TR.
>
> Also you can't use "Safer C" either. the last suggestion I saw ran to
> three lines :-)

So what? A Montague by any other name will still suffer an
occasional street mugging by wandering bands of Capulets.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com


.

Relevant Pages