Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!andree
From: andree@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why not a varargs declaration? - (nf)
Message-ID: <3794@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Nov-83 00:35:22 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3794
Posted: Sun Nov 20 00:35:22 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Nov-83 01:30:38 EST
Lines: 20

#R:wu1:-18500:uokvax:3000007:000:496
uokvax!andree    Nov  9 06:05:00 1983

Might I also suggest coping the void function argument ala:

	f(varargs) <what DO you put here?>; {

Or, better yet:

	f(a, b, varargs) int a, b; <ditto>; {

Varargs f() isn't bad - I think the above fits C better (how do
you declare a pointer to struct gort as varargs?). Agregates
strike me as a BAD idea.  Though reasonable in and of
themselves, they would seem to require a major mod to C.

I vaguely recall (possibly wrongly) a rumor that some at Bell
was working on such a creature.

	<mike