Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!hamilton
From: hamilton@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: weird c code/ c test
Message-ID: <175400004@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12-Aug-87 16:47:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uxc.175400004
Posted: Wed Aug 12 16:47:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 17:46:48 EDT
References: <1089@gilsys.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:gilsys.UUCP:1089:uxc.cso.uiuc.edu:175400004:000:1106
Nf-From: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!hamilton    Aug 12 15:47:00 1987


karl@haddock says:
> In article <5192@utcsri.UUCP> flaps@utcsri.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
> >>#include	<stdio.h>
> >Huh?  Not used in the program below.
>
> The program used printf(), which is a stdio function.  Therefore it is
> appropriate to #include <stdio.h>.  Those of us who are familiar with stdio
> internals know that virtually all pre-ANSI implementations will produce the
> correct result without this line, but does that justify omitting it?

<quibble mode on>
printf predates stdio.  true, the semantics have changed a bit since
the advent of stdio (previously, we didn't need sprintf and fprintf;
printf did it all!), and a discussion of stdio would be incomplete
without covering printf, but including stdio.h solely for printf is
a bit paranoid.  next, you'll want me to #include <time.h> when i use
ctime().

	wayne hamilton
	U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL
UUCP:	{ihnp4,seismo,pur-ee,convex}!uiucuxc!hamilton
ARPA:	hamilton@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu	USMail:	Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801
CSNET:	hamilton%uxc@uiuc.csnet		Phone:	(217)333-8703
CIS:    [73047,544]			PLink:  w hamilton