retiring gets(3) - Actually, omitting docs.

[Robert Seals]

In article <8841 at smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <1988Nov8.054845.23998 at utstat.uucp> geoff at utstat.uucp (Geoff Collyer) writes:
> >We need to get ... the next release from your favourite C vendor to
> >delete gets.
> 
> I think the appropriate treatment of gets() is to omit it from the
> documentation or ...

I suppose there might be reasons to do this, but 1) it smells real bad
already, and 2) is kinda dishonest, and 3) is annoying.
My objections to omitting documentation are mostly moral, while my objection
to gets() et al. is functionally borne out...

rob