Talk:Null-terminated string/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:35, 7 May 2022

Revision as of 02:44, 2 February 2023

Line 614:

:: Ok, I agree. C++11 uses ''byte string'' to name single byte character strings, so I think it's a good idea to stick with it. [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 02:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

== Single page for C string functions ==

:''Based on [[Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL]]''

The following pages essentially discuss the same topic of C string functions: [[string.h]], [[memset]], [[strcpy]], [[strlcpy]], [[strcat]], [[strrchr]], [[strcspn]], [[ctype.h]], [[strcmp]], [[strlen]], [[memccpy]], [[mempcpy]]. I propose to cleanup these pages by removing the material that fails [[WP:NOTMANUAL]] and by merging the remains into [[C string]].[[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 23:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

: memset <strike>, memcpy,</strike> and mempcpy don't operate on C strings (that is, NUL-terminated strings). They operate on buffers with a length specified by one of the arguments. However I agree that there should not be one function per page. [[User:Jeh|Jeh]] ([[User talk:Jeh|talk]]) 04:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:: I am unsure myself what to do with these functions. They do not really belong to C string, that's a fact. On the other hand, IMO they are not significant enough to warrant a separate page, and even if we chose to create one, there's hardly a good descriptive name for it. I myself tried to think of one, but all of them fit better for functions like malloc, e.g. ''C memory handling'', ''C memory operations'', etc. Going further, ''mem*'' functions are in the same header as ''str*'' functions, and most of the references I could find, e.g. cplusplus.com, cppreference.com, the C standard, preserve such grouping. Thus I think we wouldn't do a big mistake by sticking with established sources. Given these arguments, I think it's a good option to merge ''mem*'' to ''str*''. That said, if you've got a sensible alternative, I'd happily reconsider.[[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 09:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:If some page is merged into C string , then we are unable to see the content of that page.:How can one read the information of that page after merging?

:[[User:Sagar tikore|Sagar tikore]] ([[User talk:Sagar tikore|talk]]) 06:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:: The content wouldn't disappear anywhere, just that it would placed in this article, not these separate articles.[[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 09:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:Instead of merging the functions in [[C string]] we can merge them into [[string.h]]

:[[User : Asmita yendralwar |Asmita yendralwar]] ([[User talk:Asmita yendralwar|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Asmita yendralwar|contribs]]) 07:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:: I don't think this would be a good option since it would be inconsistent with other pages discussing C standard library, e.g. [[C memory operations]], [[C input/output]].[[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 09:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

::I agree with merging all of string.h into this page (there is a table already there) and removing all the trivial pages for the individual functions and changing them to redirects. However some pages with more information, in particular the [[strlcpy]] page, need to be preserved (this page contains a bit of history and political intrigue which is interesting but would bloat this page and make the table hard to read). The mem functions should be merged here as well, they are part of string.h and often are used to manipulate c strings.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::I also agree to merge all string.h here. [[User:Yogesh.rathod07|Yogesh.rathod07]] ([[User talk:Yogesh.rathod07|talk]]) 06:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

:I did a few modifications. In particular I dupliated the old string.h table and text here, it seems to be more accurate and carefully checked. In particular it lists some of the alternative functions which otherwise we lost. I also restored the page for ctype.h as I was under the impression this was to be divided up by header file (and also that file is not really dependent on null-terminated strings). I also restored the gets and strlcpy pages as they had significant text describing historic details and are referred to often from other wikipedia articles. Hope this is all ok.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 02:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:Oops it looks like I deleted all the external links to C/C++ documentation pages. Probably should be restored.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 02:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

===[[strlcpy]]===

I'm going to replace this page with a redirect again. The consensus was to merge '''all''' functions, that consist from material failing [[WP:NOTMANUAL]] and [[strlcpy]] falls into this group of pages. The only section that can be preserved somewhere is ''Criticism''. However, I think we <del>should</del> can delete even that material, because it fails [[WP:NOTABILITY]] by not having [[WP:RS]] to back up the text. The already provided references are not [[WP:RS]] because of [[WP:SPS]]. <br>Going further, the page is imported into Wikibooks at [[b:C Programming/C Reference/nonstandard/strlcpy]], so there absolutely no justification to keep anything failing Wikipedia guidelines here, when the content can be further improved in Wikibooks. [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 12:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:The criticism is backed by direct quotes from the maintainer of glibc posted on the official glibc mailing list. There was more but it is repeatedly deleted, because of a desire to obfuscate the exact guilty party and to try to claim the argument actually has merit. strlcpy is often mentioned as a indicator of misguided design in Linux and is thus a subject people will look for. I do not think whitewashing this story is good for Linux or for any of the involved parties.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 14:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:: I'm not trying to whitewash or anything. I'm just saying there's not enough notable material to warrant a separate article, especially when strlcpy is not a standard function. That's not to say that we must delete that material - a better idea would be to merge the important bits to [[C string]]. In this case, we can create a new section called ''Extensions'', move all the non standard functions there, and to place criticisms and other relevant stuff there. [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

::: While I personally agree with merging the page, you stated that you were going to merge the page but you didn't even do that before blanking it. The best practice according to [[WP:MERGE]] is to first obtain consensus, and actually merge the page before redirecting. I'm going to remove the redirect now because clearly the [[C string]] page does not cover all of the useful information in the [[strlcpy]] page. At the very least, the criticism of strlcpy needs to be addressed before this article can be redirected there. [[User:YumOooze|YumOooze]] ([[User talk:YumOooze|talk]]) 04:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

:::: I think I have addressed your concerns.[[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

::::: There is a lot of books which describe strlcpy, take a look at [http://www.google.com/search?q=strlcpy&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=strlcpy&pbx=1&oq=strlcpy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l0l1477567l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=711d2dd8fab9cdf8&biw=1440&bih=698 google books] - the article has not been merged - must of the content has been removed with the argument that it violate [[WP:NOTMANUAL]] - I think the Section "Usage" could be rewritten by a few edits so it didnt "violate" [[WP:NOTMANUAL]]. And I dont understand why you removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strlcpy&diff=456970003&oldid=456969970 this] with the statement that it isnt noteable that e.g. Linux Kernel has ported the function - the kernel can not use the standard C library as you may know. I am going to remove the redirect again (until the page has been merged into this article) [[User:Christian75|Christian75]] ([[User talk:Christian75|talk]]) 15:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::Do you wan't to say that all these thousands of functions that are in the Linux kernel deserve a page? Can you find a secondary [[WP:RS]] which justifies the inclusion as per [[WP:GNG | wikipedia notability criteria]]? [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 17:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::In any case, the ''current consensus'' is to merge. See [[Talk:C standard library#Pages_for_each_function_and_WP:NOTMANUAL|this discussion]]. As you can see, 5 editors ([[User:strcat]], [[User:Vadmium]], [[User:Ruud_Koot|''Ruud'']], [[User:MCWNT|Michael]], [[User:1exec1]]) are for the merge, 2 users against ([[User:Spitzak]], [[User:Christian75]]) (please fix if I'm wrong). So I have strong reason to undo your changes. '''Please establish new consensus before reverting'''. [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 18:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

::Maybe there was a consensus for the idea of merging many articles but judging my the noise on my watchlist I dunno if there is much consensus for this particular merge from [[strlcpy]] into [[C string]]. How about something in between like renaming as [[strlcpy and strlcat]]? Sources and Wikipedia references seem to group them like that anyway. [[User:Vadmium|Vadmium]] ([[User talk:Vadmium|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Vadmium|contribs]]) 10:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC).

===[[strcpy]]===

I am going to replace this page with a redirect again. Almost all content fails [[WP:GNG]], because the only secondary source I could find, that supports the material, is man pages, which is not [[WP:RS]]. The remaining is already at [[C string]]. Since there has been no recent attempt to fix these issues, except one editor who reverts page blanking, I assume that there is no genuine interest in the article.

I will not bring the article to [[WP:AFD]] because there is no intent to delete the page proper. Undoable action should be discussed in the talk page (see [[WP:AFD]], specifically ''For problems that do not require deletion, including <...>, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately'''). [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

===[[strcat]]===

I am going to replace this page with a redirect again. This page is in exactly the same situation as ''strcpy''. Almost all content fails [[WP:GNG]], because the only secondary source I could find, that supports the material, is man pages, which is not [[WP:RS]]. The remaining is already at [[C string]]. Since there has been no recent attempt to fix these issues, except one editor who reverts page blanking, I assume that there is no genuine interest in the article. [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

: Have you tried a search with google books? I could find a lot of secondary sources to the article a minute ago - but it takes time to insert the refs. I think its a shame to delete it (I know you "merged" it, but the content didnt move with it). There exsist a lot of sources for [http://www.google.com/search?q=strcat&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 strcat at google books] [http://www.google.com/search?q=strcat&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#ds=bo&pq=strcat&hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=21&gs_id=18&xhr=t&q=strcat+bufferoverflow&qe=c3RyY2F0IGJ1ZmZlcm92ZXJmbG93&qesig=FjRQPCAO8H1jNfdG_s3Mrg&pkc=AFgZ2tnTaIGruOChDwzPHlWlFwICBv7dHMuzDb1g-PdiQ8r_OIk0fN8PSIaTB5UWvC3Nhf43ztL3iT3x35zsbWUDoX1t9FUU0A&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=strcat+bufferoverflow&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=711d2dd8fab9cdf8&biw=1440&bih=681 "strcat buffer overflow" at google books] [[User:Christian75|Christian75]] ([[User talk:Christian75|talk]]) 17:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

:: You mean those all programming books/manuals? They do not constitute ''significant coverage'' as per [[WP:N]], because if we remove the 'how-to use strcat' portion of that material, only a very limited factual mention is left. As per [[WP:N]], you must find a third-party reliable source in which strcat is one of few major subjects. [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 19:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

::: Please, read the [[WP:N]] again, especially the section you quote ''significant coverage'' which says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." [[User:Christian75|Christian75]] ([[User talk:Christian75|talk]]) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

:::: Show specific examples of books about strcat and then we can talk what fails [[WP:N]] and what doesn't. [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 09:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)