Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mephisto!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!sequoia!rpp386!woody
From: woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: `safe' putc (was avoiding stdio)
Summary: wheeeeeew!
Message-ID: <17912@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 11 Feb 90 06:11:31 GMT
References: <10883@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <21689@mimsy.umd.edu> <1990Feb9.214044.26382@twwells.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Plano, TX
Lines: 26

In article <1990Feb9.214044.26382@twwells.com>, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
> In article <670@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> : It's wonderful that this mistake is documented. It's still a mistake.
> 
> I have this little meter; it says "don't connect to over 10,000V"
> on it.
> 
> "It's wonderful that this mistake is documented. It's still a mistake."
> 
> What horseshit!
> 
> 
> If you can't stand the limitations of the more efficient tool
> DON'T USE IT.
> 
> my choices for programming. *I* know what I'm doing and you are,
> by your suggestion, making yourself look like an ignorant lout.

And you, are making yourself look like an arrogant lout.

> Now go away while I continue to use putc, safely, just like I
> have for the past seven years.
> 

Jumpin' willies, this one has SHARK teeth...(pun intended)
Do you have sandpaper for hide?  Give the guy a break!