Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!rbj@icst-cmr
From: rbj%icst-cmr@smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C Builtin Funxions
Message-ID: <99@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 17-Apr-86 19:11:16 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.99
Posted: Thu Apr 17 19:11:16 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Apr-86 03:44:25 EST
Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA
Lines: 27


	In article <2564@brl-smoke.ARPA>, rbj@icst-cmr.ARPA (root) writes:
	> Some of us know what we're doing. One sees lots of redefinitions of
	> things like `putc' in {VM,}UNIX code. It is often desirable to use
	> high level funxions (printf) while hacking up a lower level one.
	
	Of course, you realize redefining putc will have no effect on printf...
	
		Wayne

Silly me! I *axually* believed the UNIX documentation! I quote from
man 3 printf:

... Characters generated by printf are printed by putc(3S).

Well, that may have been once true, and the effect is mostly the same.
Okay, so I picked a bad example. Lets go one level up. I could
redefine printf to remove all that floating point stuff I
don't want or need, and maybe add a few formats of my own (You hear
a faint cry of anguish (about portability) in the background).

THEN, I am free to redefine putc, perhaps to print unprintable
chars as ^X for control X, etc. In fact I did this to `more'.

	Thanx for setting me straight

	(Root Boy) Jim Cottrell		<rbj@cmr>