From: Kees Cook > Sent: 22 March 2023 16:51 > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 04:12:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > It's more useful to return the original string with strreplace(), Won't that break anything that is using the result? > I found the use of "original" confusing here and in the comments. This > just returns arg 1, yes? i.e. it's not the original (unreplaced) string, > but rather just the string itself. > > I agree, though, that's much more useful than a pointer to the end of > the string. If you want a pointer to the start of the string, you've already got it. Almost all the time you can do the assignment first. But if you want a pointer to the end you'll need to scan it again. I have a feeling that the reason many of the string functions return the original pointer is a historic side effect of the original implementation. Going back to before C had a 'return' statement. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
