Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: `safe' putc (was avoiding stdio)
Message-ID: <10404@alice.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jan 90 23:40:33 GMT
References: <10883@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <21689@mimsy.umd.edu> <22169@mimsy.umd.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 14

In article <22169@mimsy.umd.edu>, chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:

> putc *is* *documented* as not being careful about its second parameter.
> If you do not like this, too bad:  Every vendor has a right to use this
> parameter several times in the macro expansion of putc().  Mistake or
> not, we are stuck with it.

Has anyone out there actually written a program that depends
for its correct operation on side effects of the second
argument of putc?  I can see it for the first argument,
but the second?
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com