Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 ggr 10/10/85; site bentley.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!bentley!kwh
From: kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C builtin functions
Message-ID: <729@bentley.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Apr-86 22:49:50 EST
Article-I.D.: bentley.729
Posted: Mon Apr 21 22:49:50 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Apr-86 21:45:51 EST
References: <443@3comvax.UUCP> <7900003@ztivax.UUCP> <584@ihdev.UUCP> <6584@utzoo.UUCP> <596@ihdev.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner
Lines: 30

In article <836@ttrdc.UUCP> ttrdc!levy (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
>I think that inline expansion would make lots of sense for cases like
>printf() [which could] parse the formats at compile time [and catch
>mismatched formats and variables].

The smart versions of lint can already detect such format mismatches in
printf() and scanf().  This is actually more powerful than having it done
by the C compiler, because cc would only recognize the builtin functions
(i.e.  those in libc) while lint can be told that any given function is
"printf-like".  Of course it's a kludge either way, and won't help with
other functions based on the same principle, such as tparm() in libcurses.

The only advantage I can see in a builtin printf() is that it might be
possible to optimize  printf("%d\n",n);  into  d_printf(n); putchar('\n');
and avoid loading the entire printf library (the "%g" functions, etc.)

>Someone commented that implementations were expected to have an external
>set of the "standard" functions on hand [for pointer passing], e.g. passing
>strcmp() as a comparison routine to qsort().  Are there other reasons?

For reasons I won't elaborate here (other than to mention orthogonality and
the Spirit of Unix), I'm opposed to the idea of builtin functions.  I might
support the idea of additional operators for sufficiently primitive
operations.  (Unary "|" for abs()?  Binary "><" for min(), "<>" for max()?
Now that would drive the pascal/basic users batty! :-)  And we'd get "><="
and "<>=" operators for free.)  I don't want C to get overblown like ksh
(where "kill" is a builtin!).

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
Why won't people fix the Newsgroups and Subject lines when the topic changes?