Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cme!libes From: libes@cme.nist.gov (Don Libes) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: vprintf() Message-ID: <5595@muffin.cme.nist.gov> Date: 6 Aug 90 05:53:08 GMT References: <1990Jul28.211947.3795@zoo.toronto.edu> <13450@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1990Jul30.182656.19169@zoo.toronto.edu> <924@nlsun1.oracle.nl> Reply-To: libes@cme.nist.gov (Don Libes) Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology Lines: 21 In article <924@nlsun1.oracle.nl> bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) writes: >Doug: You don't have to include to get vprintf() properly defined, > just ... >Henry: Can you prove this? >Isn't it wonderful for the rest of us that the guru's also disagree sometimes? >What about Karl or Chris, don't you have a comment to this interesting discus- >sion. I would very much like to know if I need to include in all >those sources where I only need to define vprintf() but don't call it :-) This month's C Users Journal has an article by Plauger (X3J11 secretary) which discusses this very point at length. In brief, he agrees with Doug, however the article goes into some detail about why this is an important issue and some suggested implementation notes. Since the standard was passed, Plauger has been writing interpretation articles in CUJ that I've found fascinating and very well written. For instance, they include a lot of historical background, misperceptions, caveats, implementation suggestions and examples. Don Libes libes@cme.nist.gov ...!uunet!cme-durer!libes