Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Machine specific predefined names
Message-ID: <3264@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: 31 Mar 88 18:08:58 GMT
References: <1988Feb17.115402.12739@light.uucp> <17033@watmath.waterloo.edu> <242@sdrc.UUCP> <378@wsccs.UUCP> <3225@haddock.ISC.COM> <598@tuvie>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 16

In article <598@tuvie> rcvie@tuvie.UUCP (Alcatel-ELIN Forsch.z.) writes:
|In article <3225@haddock.ISC.COM> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
|>If you try to redefine *any* standard routine -- whether macro or function
|>-- the result should be, and is, undefined.  Why should the user be forced
|>to learn the implementation details?
|
|Just try the portable way and noone has to learn anything but that there
|*are* some routines implemented as functions and some as macros:
|  #undef putchar
|  <your putchar-macro/function>

That isn't portable.  After you've redefined something, you have no way of
knowing whether other library routines (e.g. puts) will be using your putchar
or the standard one.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint