This is a seemingly simple question that I have not been able to answer for far too long:
I am trying to read input from a user in a C program using fgets(). However, I am running into the problem that if the user enters more characters than fgets() is set to read, the next call to read a string from the user automatically reads the remaining characters in the stdin buffer, and this is NOT behavior I want.
I have tried many ways to clear the stdin stream, and while I know something like
while(getchar()!='\n');
will work, this requires the user to hit enter an additional time which is not something I want.
The structure of the code looks something like this:
void read_string(char *s, int width){
fgets(s,width,stdin);
clear_stdin();
.
.
}
while (1){
read_string()
.
.
}
But I cannot get a clear_stdin() function that works desirably. How on earth can I clear the stdin, without having the user needlessly need to hit enter twice?
To achieve what you want — reading and ignoring extra characters up to a newline if the buffer you supplied is over-filled — you need to conditionally read up to the newline, only doing so if there isn't a newline already in the input buffer that was read.
void read_string(char *s, int width)
{
if (fgets(s, width, stdin) != 0)
{
size_t length = strlen(s);
if (length > 0 && s[length-1] != '\n')
{
int c;
while ((c = getchar()) != '\n' && c != EOF)
;
}
/* Use the input data */
}
else
/* Handle EOF or error */
}
The other part of the technique is to make sure that you use a big enough buffer that it is unlikely that anyone will overflow it. Think in terms of char buffer[4096]; as an opening bid; you can increase it if you prefer. That makes it unlikely that anyone will (be able to) type enough data on a single line to overflow the buffer you provide, thus avoiding the problem.
Another option is to use POSIX getline(). It reads a line into allocated space, allocating more space until the data fits (or you run out of memory). It has at least one other major advantage over fgets() — it reports the number of characters in the line it read, which means it is not confused by null bytes ('\0', usually typed as Control-#) in the input. By contrast, you can't tell whether there was any data entered after the first null byte with fgets(); you have to assume that the input stopped at the first null byte.
Note that the simple loop shown in the question (while (getchar() != '\n');) becomes infinite if it encounters EOF before reading a newline.
You cannot clear stdin in a portable way (because no function from <stdio.h> is specified doing that). BTW, stdin can usually be not only a terminal, but also a redirection or a pipe (or even perhaps some socket). Details matter of course (e.g. your operating system and/or running environment).
You could avoid stdio and use operating system specific ways to deal with standard input (e.g. working at the file descriptor level on POSIX systems).
On Linux (specifically) you might read more about the Tty demystified, and code low level code based on such knowledge. See termios(3). Consider using readline(3).
You could use (on Linux at least) getline(3) to read a heap-allocated line buffer.
while ((getchar()) != '\n');
This will not always work...(but on the bright side, the cases in which it doesn't are just as portable as the cases in which it does). But if stdin has not been redirected, the terminal char of the user's input, unless a manual EOF, will usually be a newline. After you extract what you expect, assuming you don't expect the \n, you can drain what's there up until(and including) the '\n', and then iterate anew. As others have suggested, there are higher level interfaces to deal with this minutia more reliably than manual fringe case handling most of the time.
More Details on Challenge and Solutions
This link contains the cardinal sin of "C\C++" in its heading, which doesn't exist as an entity. Rest assured, separate C examples are given, discrete from alternate C++ ones.
I cannot understand when does the putchar line is being executed and how it's helping to reverse the input lines ? If EOF occurs the return statement gets executed , but what happens after that line ?
#include<stdio.h>
int fun_reverse();
void main(){
fun_reverse();
}
int fun_reverse(){
int ch ;
ch = getchar();
if(ch==EOF)
return;
fun_reverse();
putchar(ch);
}
every time you're calling fun_reverse in your fun_reverse function, it doesn't print the inputted char immediately, just asks for input for another one, piling on the requests (and creating as much local variables storing each char) until EOF is reached.
When EOF is encountered, fun_reverse returns without calling fun_reverse again, ending the chain, making all callers return and eventually print the results.
The fact that the calls have been piled on due to recursion has the effect of reversing the output, because unpiling them is done the other way round.
This technique is often used to convert a number to string without any extra buffer. Converting a number to string gives the "wrong" end of the number first, so you have to buffer the numbers until the number digits are fully processed. A similar algorithm as the one above allows to store the digits and print them in the readable order.
Though your question is already been answered I would suggest you to read about 'head recursion' and 'tail recursion'.
Have a look at accepted answer of this question.
This code comes from K&R. I have read it several times, but it still seems to escape my grasp.
#define BUFSIZE 100
char buf[BUFSIZE];
int bufp = 0;
int getch(void)
{
return(bufp>0)?buf[--bufp]:getchar();
}
int ungetch(int c)
{
if(bufp>=BUFSIZE)
printf("too many characters");
else buf[bufp++]=c;
}
The purpose of these two functions, so K&R says, is to prevent a program from reading too much input. i.e. without this code a function might not be able to determine it has read enough data without first reading too much. But I don't understand how it works.
For example, consider getch().
As far as I can see this is the steps it takes:
check if bufp is greater than 0.
if so then return the char value of buf[--bufp].
else return getchar().
I would like to ask a more specific question, but I literally dont know how this code achieves what it is intended to achieve, so my question is: What is (a) the purpose and (b) the reasoning of this code?
Thanks in advance.
NOTE: For any K&R fans, this code can be found on page 79 (depending on your edition, I suppose)
(a) The purpose of this code is to be able to read a character and then "un-read" it if it turns out you accidentally read a character too many (with a max. of 100 characters to be "un-read"). This is useful in parsers with lookahead.
(b) getch reads from buf if it has contents, indicated by bufp>0. If buf is empty, it calls getchar. Note that it uses buf as a stack: it reads it from right-to-left.
ungetch pushes a character onto the stack buf after doing a check to see if the stack isn't full.
The code is not really for "reading too much input", instead is it so you can put back characters already read.
For example, you read one character with getch, see if it is a letter, put it back with ungetch and read all letters in a loop. This is a way of predicting what the next character will be.
This block of code is intended for use by programs that make decisions based on what they read from the stream. Sometimes such programs need to look at a few character from the stream without actually consuming the input. For example, if your input looks like abcde12xy789 and you must split it into abcde, 12, xy, 789 (i.e. separate groups of consecutive letters from groups of consecutive digits) you do not know that you have reached the end of a group of letters until you see a digit. However, you do not want to consume that digit at the time you see it: all you need is to know that the group of letters is ending; you need a way to "put back" that digit. An ungetch comes in handy in this situation: once you see a digit after a group of letters, you put the digit back by calling ungetch. Your next iteration will pick that digit back up through the same getch mechanism, sparing you the need to preserve the character that you read but did not consume.
1. The other idea also shown here can be also called as a very primitive I/O stack mangement system and gives the implementation of the function getch() and ungetch().
2. To go a step further , suppose you want to design an Operating System , how can you handle the memory which stores all the keystrokes?
This is solved by the above code snippet.An extension of this concept is used in file handling , especially in editing files .In that case instead of using getchar() which is used to take input from Standard input , a file is used as a source of input.
I have a problem with code given in question. Using buffer (in form of stack) in this code is not correct as when getting more than one extra inputs and pushing into stack will have undesired effect in latter processing (getting input from buffer).
This is because when latter processing (getting input) going on ,this buffer (stack) will give extra input in reverse order (means last extra input given first).
Because of LIFO (Last in first out ) property of stack , the buffer in this code must be quene as it will work better in case of more than one extra input.
This mistake in code confused me and finally this buffer must be quene as shown below.
#define BUFSIZE 100
char buf[BUFSIZE];
int bufr = 0;
int buff = 0;
int getch(void)
{
if (bufr ==BUFSIZE)
bufr=0;
return(bufr>=0)?buf[bufr++]:getchar();
}
int ungetch(int c)
{
if(buff>=BUFSIZE && bufr == 0)
printf("too many characters");
else if(buff ==BUFSIZE)
buff=0;
if(buff<=BUFSIZE)
buf[buff++]=c;
}
Thank you everybody so far for your input and advice!
Additionally:
After testing and toying further, it seems individual calls to FileReader succeed. But calling FileReader multiple times (these might be separate versions of FileReader) causes the issue to occur.
End Add
Hello,
I have a very unusual problem [please read this fully: it's important] (Code::Blocks compiler, Windows Vista Home) [no replicable code] with the C File Reading functions (fread, fgetc). Now, normally, the File Reading functions load up the data correctly to a self-allocating and self-deallocating string (and it's not the string's issue), but this is where it gets bizarre (and where Quantum Physics fits in):
An error catching statement reports that EOF occurred too early (IE inside the comments section at the start of the text file it's loading). Printing out the string [after it's loaded] reports that indeed, it's too short (24 chars) (but it has enough space to fit it [~400] and no allocation issues). The fgetc loop iterator reports it's terminating at just 24 (the file is roughly 300 chars long) with an EOF: This is where it goes whacky:
Temporarily checking Read->_base reports the entire (~300) chars are loaded - no EOF at 24. Perplexed, [given it's an fgetc loop] I added a printf to display each char [as a %d so I could spot the -1 EOF] at every step so I could see what it was doing, and modified it so it was a single char. It loops fine, reaching the ~300 mark instead of 24 - but freezes up randomly moments later. BUT, when I removed printf, it terminated at 24 again and got caught by the error-catching statement.
Summary:
So, basically: I have a bug that is affected by the 'Observer Effect' out of quantum physics: When I try to observe the chars I get from fgetc via printf, the problem (early EOF termination at 24) disappears, but when I stop viewing it, the error-catch statement reports early termination.
The more bizarre thing is, this isn't the first time it's occurred. Fread had a similar problem, and I was unable to figure out why, and replaced it with the fgetc loop.
[Code can't really be supplied as the code base is 5 headers in size].
Snippet:
int X = 0;
int C = 0;
int I = 0;
while(Copy.Array[X] != EOF)
{
//Copy.Array[X] = fgetc(Read);
C = fgetc(Read);
Copy.Array[X] = C;
printf("%d %c\n",C,C); //Remove/add this as necessary
if(C == EOF){break;}
X++;
}
Side-Note: Breaking it down into the simplest format does not reproduce the error.
This is the oldest error in the book, kind of.
You can't use a variable of type char to read characters (!), since the EOF constant doesn't fit.
You need:
int C;
Also, the while condition looks scary, you are incrementing X in the loop, then checking the (new) position, is that properly initialized? You don't show how Copy.Array is set up before starting the loop.
I would suggest removing that altogether, it's very strange code.
In fact, I don't understand why you loop reading single characters at all, why not just use fread() to read as much as you need?
Firstly, unwind's answer is a valid point although I'm not sure whether it explains the issues you are seeing.
Secondly,
printf("%d %c\n",C,C); //Remove/add this as necessary
might be a problem. The %d and %c format specifiers expect an int to be the parameter, you are only passing a char. Depending on your compiler, this might mean that they are too small.
This is what I think the problem is:
How are you allocating Copy.Array? Are you making sure all its elements are zeroed before you start? If you malloc it (malloc just leaves whatever garbage was in the memory it returns) and an element just happens to contain 0xFF, your loop will exit prematurely because your while condition tests Copy.Array[X] before you have placed a character in that location.
This is one of the few cases where I allow myself to put an assignment in a condition because the pattern
int c;
while ((c = fgetc(fileStream)) != EOF)
{
doSomethingWithC(c);
}
is really common
Edit
Just read your "Additionally" comment. I think it is highly likely you are overrunning your output buffer. I think you should change your code to something like:
int X = 0; int C = 0; int I = 0;
while(X < arraySize && (C = fgetc(Read)) != EOF)
{
Copy.Array[X] = C;
printf("%d %c\n", (int)C, (int)C);
X++;
}
printf("\n");
Note that I am assuming that you have a variable called arraySize that is set to the number of characters you can write to the array without overrunning it. Note also, I am not writing the EOF to your array.
You probably have some heap corruption going on. Without seeing code it's impossible to say.
Not sure if this is your error but this code:
C = fgetc(Read);
Copy.Array[X] = C;
if(C == EOF){break;}
Means you are adding the EOF value into your array - I'm pretty sure you don't want to do that, especially as your array is presumably char and EOF is int, so you'll actually end up with some other value in there (which could mess up later loops etc).
Instead I suggest you change the order so C is only put in the array once you know it is not EOF:
C = fgetc(Read);
if(C == EOF){break;}
Copy.Array[X] = C;
Whilst this isn't what I'd call a 'complete' answer (as the bug remains), this does solve the 'observer effect' element: I found, for some reason, printf was somehow 'fixing' the code, and using std::cout seemed to (well, I can't say 'fix' the problem) prevent the observer effect happening. That is to say, use std::cout instead of printf (as printf is the origin of the observer effect).
It seems to me that printf does something in memory on a lower level that seems to partially correct what does indeed seem to be a memory allocation error.
I want to know the disadvantages of scanf().
In many sites, I have read that using scanf might cause buffer overflows. What is the reason for this? Are there any other drawbacks with scanf?
Most of the answers so far seem to focus on the string buffer overflow issue. In reality, the format specifiers that can be used with scanf functions support explicit field width setting, which limit the maximum size of the input and prevent buffer overflow. This renders the popular accusations of string-buffer overflow dangers present in scanf virtually baseless. Claiming that scanf is somehow analogous to gets in the respect is completely incorrect. There's a major qualitative difference between scanf and gets: scanf does provide the user with string-buffer-overflow-preventing features, while gets doesn't.
One can argue that these scanf features are difficult to use, since the field width has to be embedded into format string (there's no way to pass it through a variadic argument, as it can be done in printf). That is actually true. scanf is indeed rather poorly designed in that regard. But nevertheless any claims that scanf is somehow hopelessly broken with regard to string-buffer-overflow safety are completely bogus and usually made by lazy programmers.
The real problem with scanf has a completely different nature, even though it is also about overflow. When scanf function is used for converting decimal representations of numbers into values of arithmetic types, it provides no protection from arithmetic overflow. If overflow happens, scanf produces undefined behavior. For this reason, the only proper way to perform the conversion in C standard library is functions from strto... family.
So, to summarize the above, the problem with scanf is that it is difficult (albeit possible) to use properly and safely with string buffers. And it is impossible to use safely for arithmetic input. The latter is the real problem. The former is just an inconvenience.
P.S. The above in intended to be about the entire family of scanf functions (including also fscanf and sscanf). With scanf specifically, the obvious issue is that the very idea of using a strictly-formatted function for reading potentially interactive input is rather questionable.
The problems with scanf are (at a minimum):
using %s to get a string from the user, which leads to the possibility that the string may be longer than your buffer, causing overflow.
the possibility of a failed scan leaving your file pointer in an indeterminate location.
I very much prefer using fgets to read whole lines in so that you can limit the amount of data read. If you've got a 1K buffer, and you read a line into it with fgets you can tell if the line was too long by the fact there's no terminating newline character (last line of a file without a newline notwithstanding).
Then you can complain to the user, or allocate more space for the rest of the line (continuously if necessary until you have enough space). In either case, there's no risk of buffer overflow.
Once you've read the line in, you know that you're positioned at the next line so there's no problem there. You can then sscanf your string to your heart's content without having to save and restore the file pointer for re-reading.
Here's a snippet of code which I frequently use to ensure no buffer overflow when asking the user for information.
It could be easily adjusted to use a file other than standard input if necessary and you could also have it allocate its own buffer (and keep increasing it until it's big enough) before giving that back to the caller (although the caller would then be responsible for freeing it, of course).
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define OK 0
#define NO_INPUT 1
#define TOO_LONG 2
#define SMALL_BUFF 3
static int getLine (char *prmpt, char *buff, size_t sz) {
int ch, extra;
// Size zero or one cannot store enough, so don't even
// try - we need space for at least newline and terminator.
if (sz < 2)
return SMALL_BUFF;
// Output prompt.
if (prmpt != NULL) {
printf ("%s", prmpt);
fflush (stdout);
}
// Get line with buffer overrun protection.
if (fgets (buff, sz, stdin) == NULL)
return NO_INPUT;
// Catch possibility of `\0` in the input stream.
size_t len = strlen(buff);
if (len < 1)
return NO_INPUT;
// If it was too long, there'll be no newline. In that case, we flush
// to end of line so that excess doesn't affect the next call.
if (buff[len - 1] != '\n') {
extra = 0;
while (((ch = getchar()) != '\n') && (ch != EOF))
extra = 1;
return (extra == 1) ? TOO_LONG : OK;
}
// Otherwise remove newline and give string back to caller.
buff[len - 1] = '\0';
return OK;
}
And, a test driver for it:
// Test program for getLine().
int main (void) {
int rc;
char buff[10];
rc = getLine ("Enter string> ", buff, sizeof(buff));
if (rc == NO_INPUT) {
// Extra NL since my system doesn't output that on EOF.
printf ("\nNo input\n");
return 1;
}
if (rc == TOO_LONG) {
printf ("Input too long [%s]\n", buff);
return 1;
}
printf ("OK [%s]\n", buff);
return 0;
}
Finally, a test run to show it in action:
$ printf "\0" | ./tstprg # Singular NUL in input stream.
Enter string>
No input
$ ./tstprg < /dev/null # EOF in input stream.
Enter string>
No input
$ ./tstprg # A one-character string.
Enter string> a
OK [a]
$ ./tstprg # Longer string but still able to fit.
Enter string> hello
OK [hello]
$ ./tstprg # Too long for buffer.
Enter string> hello there
Input too long [hello the]
$ ./tstprg # Test limit of buffer.
Enter string> 123456789
OK [123456789]
$ ./tstprg # Test just over limit.
Enter string> 1234567890
Input too long [123456789]
From the comp.lang.c FAQ: Why does everyone say not to use scanf? What should I use instead?
scanf has a number of problems—see questions 12.17, 12.18a, and 12.19. Also, its %s format has the same problem that gets() has (see question 12.23)—it’s hard to guarantee that the receiving buffer won’t overflow. [footnote]
More generally, scanf is designed for relatively structured, formatted input (its name is in fact derived from “scan formatted”). If you pay attention, it will tell you whether it succeeded or failed, but it can tell you only approximately where it failed, and not at all how or why. You have very little opportunity to do any error recovery.
Yet interactive user input is the least structured input there is. A well-designed user interface will allow for the possibility of the user typing just about anything—not just letters or punctuation when digits were expected, but also more or fewer characters than were expected, or no characters at all (i.e., just the RETURN key), or premature EOF, or anything. It’s nearly impossible to deal gracefully with all of these potential problems when using scanf; it’s far easier to read entire lines (with fgets or the like), then interpret them, either using sscanf or some other techniques. (Functions like strtol, strtok, and atoi are often useful; see also questions 12.16 and 13.6.) If you do use any scanf variant, be sure to check the return value to make sure that the expected number of items were found. Also, if you use %s, be sure to guard against buffer overflow.
Note, by the way, that criticisms of scanf are not necessarily indictments of fscanf and sscanf. scanf reads from stdin, which is usually an interactive keyboard and is therefore the least constrained, leading to the most problems. When a data file has a known format, on the other hand, it may be appropriate to read it with fscanf. It’s perfectly appropriate to parse strings with sscanf (as long as the return value is checked), because it’s so easy to regain control, restart the scan, discard the input if it didn’t match, etc.
Additional links:
longer explanation by Chris Torek
longer explanation by yours truly
References: K&R2 Sec. 7.4 p. 159
It is very hard to get scanf to do the thing you want. Sure, you can, but things like scanf("%s", buf); are as dangerous as gets(buf);, as everyone has said.
As an example, what paxdiablo is doing in his function to read can be done with something like:
scanf("%10[^\n]%*[^\n]", buf));
getchar();
The above will read a line, store the first 10 non-newline characters in buf, and then discard everything till (and including) a newline. So, paxdiablo's function could be written using scanf the following way:
#include <stdio.h>
enum read_status {
OK,
NO_INPUT,
TOO_LONG
};
static int get_line(const char *prompt, char *buf, size_t sz)
{
char fmt[40];
int i;
int nscanned;
printf("%s", prompt);
fflush(stdout);
sprintf(fmt, "%%%zu[^\n]%%*[^\n]%%n", sz-1);
/* read at most sz-1 characters on, discarding the rest */
i = scanf(fmt, buf, &nscanned);
if (i > 0) {
getchar();
if (nscanned >= sz) {
return TOO_LONG;
} else {
return OK;
}
} else {
return NO_INPUT;
}
}
int main(void)
{
char buf[10+1];
int rc;
while ((rc = get_line("Enter string> ", buf, sizeof buf)) != NO_INPUT) {
if (rc == TOO_LONG) {
printf("Input too long: ");
}
printf("->%s<-\n", buf);
}
return 0;
}
One of the other problems with scanf is its behavior in case of overflow. For example, when reading an int:
int i;
scanf("%d", &i);
the above cannot be used safely in case of an overflow. Even for the first case, reading a string is much more simpler to do with fgets rather than with scanf.
Yes, you are right. There is a major security flaw in scanf family(scanf,sscanf, fscanf..etc) esp when reading a string, because they don't take the length of the buffer (into which they are reading) into account.
Example:
char buf[3];
sscanf("abcdef","%s",buf);
clearly the the buffer buf can hold MAX 3 char. But the sscanf will try to put "abcdef" into it causing buffer overflow.
Problems I have with the *scanf() family:
Potential for buffer overflow with %s and %[ conversion specifiers. Yes, you can specify a maximum field width, but unlike with printf(), you can't make it an argument in the scanf() call; it must be hardcoded in the conversion specifier.
Potential for arithmetic overflow with %d, %i, etc.
Limited ability to detect and reject badly formed input. For example, "12w4" is not a valid integer, but scanf("%d", &value); will successfully convert and assign 12 to value, leaving the "w4" stuck in the input stream to foul up a future read. Ideally the entire input string should be rejected, but scanf() doesn't give you an easy mechanism to do that.
If you know your input is always going to be well-formed with fixed-length strings and numerical values that don't flirt with overflow, then scanf() is a great tool. If you're dealing with interactive input or input that isn't guaranteed to be well-formed, then use something else.
Many answers here discuss the potential overflow issues of using scanf("%s", buf), but the latest POSIX specification more-or-less resolves this issue by providing an m assignment-allocation character that can be used in format specifiers for c, s, and [ formats. This will allow scanf to allocate as much memory as necessary with malloc (so it must be freed later with free).
An example of its use:
char *buf;
scanf("%ms", &buf); // with 'm', scanf expects a pointer to pointer to char.
// use buf
free(buf);
See here. Disadvantages to this approach is that it is a relatively recent addition to the POSIX specification and it is not specified in the C specification at all, so it remains rather unportable for now.
The advantage of scanf is once you learn how use the tool, as you should always do in C, it has immensely useful usecases. You can learn how to use scanf and friends by reading and understanding the manual. If you can't get through that manual without serious comprehension issues, this would probably indicate that you don't know C very well.
scanf and friends suffered from unfortunate design choices that rendered it difficult (and occasionally impossible) to use correctly without reading the documentation, as other answers have shown. This occurs throughout C, unfortunately, so if I were to advise against using scanf then I would probably advise against using C.
One of the biggest disadvantages seems to be purely the reputation it's earned amongst the uninitiated; as with many useful features of C we should be well informed before we use it. The key is to realise that as with the rest of C, it seems succinct and idiomatic, but that can be subtly misleading. This is pervasive in C; it's easy for beginners to write code that they think makes sense and might even work for them initially, but doesn't make sense and can fail catastrophically.
For example, the uninitiated commonly expect that the %s delegate would cause a line to be read, and while that might seem intuitive it isn't necessarily true. It's more appropriate to describe the field read as a word. Reading the manual is strongly advised for every function.
What would any response to this question be without mentioning its lack of safety and risk of buffer overflows? As we've already covered, C isn't a safe language, and will allow us to cut corners, possibly to apply an optimisation at the expense of correctness or more likely because we're lazy programmers. Thus, when we know the system will never receive a string larger than a fixed number of bytes, we're given the ability to declare an array that size and forego bounds checking. I don't really see this as a down-fall; it's an option. Again, reading the manual is strongly advised and would reveal this option to us.
Lazy programmers aren't the only ones stung by scanf. It's not uncommon to see people trying to read float or double values using %d, for example. They're usually mistaken in believing that the implementation will perform some kind of conversion behind the scenes, which would make sense because similar conversions happen throughout the rest of the language, but that's not the case here. As I said earlier, scanf and friends (and indeed the rest of C) are deceptive; they seem succinct and idiomatic but they aren't.
Inexperienced programmers aren't forced to consider the success of the operation. Suppose the user enters something entirely non-numeric when we've told scanf to read and convert a sequence of decimal digits using %d. The only way we can intercept such erroneous data is to check the return value, and how often do we bother checking the return value?
Much like fgets, when scanf and friends fail to read what they're told to read, the stream will be left in an unusual state;
In the case of fgets, if there isn't sufficient space to store a complete line, then the remainder of the line left unread might be erroneously treated as though it's a new line when it isn't.
In the case of scanf and friends, a conversion failed as documented above, the erroneous data is left unread on the stream and might be erroneously treated as though it's part of a different field.
It's no easier to use scanf and friends than to use fgets. If we check for success by looking for a '\n' when we're using fgets or by inspecting the return value when we use scanf and friends, and we find that we've read an incomplete line using fgets or failed to read a field using scanf, then we're faced with the same reality: We're likely to discard input (usually up until and including the next newline)! Yuuuuuuck!
Unfortunately, scanf both simultaneously makes it hard (non-intuitive) and easy (fewest keystrokes) to discard input in this way. Faced with this reality of discarding user input, some have tried scanf("%*[^\n]%*c");, not realising that the %*[^\n] delegate will fail when it encounters nothing but a newline, and hence the newline will still be left on the stream.
A slight adaptation, by separating the two format delegates and we see some success here: scanf("%*[^\n]"); getchar();. Try doing that with so few keystrokes using some other tool ;)
There is one big problem with scanf-like functions - the lack of any type safety. That is, you can code this:
int i;
scanf("%10s", &i);
Hell, even this is "fine":
scanf("%10s", i);
It's worse than printf-like functions, because scanf expects a pointer, so crashes are more likely.
Sure, there are some format-specifier checkers out there, but, those are not perfect and well, they are not part of the language or the standard library.