Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!arcturus!evil
From: evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: `safe' putc (was avoiding stdio)
Message-ID: <7172@arcturus>
Date: 6 Feb 90 17:17:00 GMT
References: <10883@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <21689@mimsy.umd.edu> <22169@mimsy.umd.edu> <10404@alice.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rockwell International, Anaheim, CA
Lines: 19


chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
> putc *is* *documented* as not being careful about its second parameter.

ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>Has anyone out there actually written a program that depends
>for its correct operation on side effects of the second
>argument of putc?  

Sorry, but what are the side effects of the second argument of putc?


Wade Guthrie
evil@arcturus.UUCP
Rockwell International
Anaheim, CA

(Rockwell doesn't necessarily believe / stand by what I'm saying; how could
they when *I* don't even know what I'm talking about???)