From 1017f02589e0c4bca3b5f12142a55874fb7001a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Cody Boone Ferguson <53008573+xexyl@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 05:31:34 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Add note to FAQ about fgets() question

It is now noted that in some cases the fix can be as simple as adding
a macro so that the entry looks almost identical to the original. I gave
an example of 1988/reddy where all that had to be added was a
redefinition of gets.
---
 faq.md | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/faq.md b/faq.md
index 901aae497..bac1f261c 100644
--- a/faq.md
+++ b/faq.md
@@ -106,6 +106,10 @@ have mainly not been touched except one that has had the buffer size increased
 (which could be done for others that are not possible to change to `fgets()` but
 this has not been done).
 
+Some entries can be made to look almost identical to the original entry. For
+instance the fix to [1988/reddy](1988/reddy/README.md) required only a single
+`#define` be added.
+
 In the future we, the judges, would prefer that entries use `fgets()` to prevent
 these problems.
 
@@ -113,6 +117,7 @@ NOTE: due to 'compatibility reasons' `fgets()` stores the newline and `gets()`
 does not. We're not sure how this is compatibility but either way it can cause a
 problem and it is this that has complicated some fixes.
 
+
 ## Q: I cannot get entry XYZZY from year 19xx to compile!
 
 Some winners, particularly winners from long ago, no longer compile on more