Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: >> Is it a downside that it is cumbersome to override? This is not a >> rhetorical question. I am not convinced there will not be a legit >> circumstance that calling strcpy (or whatever we are going to ban) >> is the best solution and it is safe. By "best", what I mean is "you >> could instead use memcpy/strncpy/whatever" can legitimately be >> argued with "but still using memcpy/strncpy/whatever is inferior >> than using strcpy in this case for such and such reasons". > > In my opinion, no, this is not a problem. > > My plan is to only add functions which are truly worthless.
OK. > Contrast this with memcpy(). This is on Microsoft's SDL banned list[1], > but I think it's silly for it to be. I would never add it to this list. A tangent, but is that because they want you to use memmove() instead so that you do not have to worry about overlapping copies, perhaps?
