Opinions and/or suggestions...

I'm trying to write my own versions of strcat, strcpy and strcmp... They work fine right now it seems
but I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions how to make them better ( I assume they aren't perfect )
if you know of good corrections which should be made.

Code:

 
//My own strcat...
char* strcat(char text1[], char text2[])
{
	int i=0, j=0;
	while ((int)text2[j] >0)
	{
		if ((int)text1[i] > 0)
			i++;
		else
		{
			text1[i] = text2[j];
			i++;
			j++;
		}
	}
return text1;
}


//My own strcpy...

char *strcpy(char text1[], char text2[])
{
	int k=0;
	while ((int)text2[k] > 0)
	{
		text1[k] = text2[k];
		k++;
	} text1[k] = '\0';
return text1;
}


// My own strcmp...

bool strcmp(char text1[], char text2[])
{
	int i=0;
	while ((int)text1[i] == (int)text2[i] && (int)text1[i] > 0)
		i++;
	if (text1[i] == text2[i])
		return true;
	else return false;
}

First, I'd change their names so they don't conflict with the standard functions. Other than that, the standard strcmp returns differently depending if the first string is before or after the second. Where your version just returns a boolean value. Also, the origional version retruns zero on true, and not one. So your truth test works the opposite of the standard.

On an aside, unless you're trying to get around lint warnings or something, you don't need to typecast all of those items.

I'll let some one else nit pick more, I just gave them a glance.

Quzah.

Ok, thanks for your reply, I agree that they should be renamed, and about the return value of strcmp, I actually knew that but didn't think about it when I wrote the function.

> strcat
There is no point checking text2[j] >0 while you're busy finding the end of text1

> (int)text2[j] >0
This is implementation sensitive - an unqualified char may be signed or unsigned.
If it's signed, and your string contains extended characters, your code will fail.
It's better to use != 0 or == 0 for detecting the end of a string

Perhaps work on the formatting as well - some lines are not indented consistently with other lines.

Ok, i'll change the >0 to !=0 as it sounds like a much better idea, and btw thanks for your reply.