Xref: utzoo comp.sources.wanted:17329 alt.sources.wanted:1403 comp.lang.c:40622
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!mycroft
From: mycroft@kropotki.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.wanted,alt.sources.wanted,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Portable mini-vfprintf?
Message-ID: <MYCROFT.91Jun30223408@kropotki.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 1 Jul 91 02:34:08 GMT
References: <25767@well.sf.ca.us>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
Organization: None.  Utter chaos.
Lines: 16
In-reply-to: jef@well.sf.ca.us's message of 29 Jun 91 00:08:49 GMT

In article <25767@well.sf.ca.us> jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) writes:

> I have this large software package, pbmplus, which I would like to be
> as portable as possible.  It has a unified message and error routine
> called pm_message, which really ought to be a varargs routine.  The
> problem is doing this portably.  I can deal with varargs.h vs. stdarg.h
> easily enough, but what about the substantial minority of systems out
> there which don't have vfprintf?

This is one of my arguments for varargs in macros.  Wouldn't it be so
nice to:

  #define pm_message(f,x,...) fprintf( stderr, f, ...)


Opinions welcome, flames ignored.