Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!charyb!dan
From: dan@charyb.COM (Dan Mick)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: `safe' putc (was avoiding stdio)
Message-ID: <363@charyb.COM>
Date: 11 Feb 90 22:57:59 GMT
References: <10883@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <21689@mimsy.umd.edu> <1990Feb9.214044.26382@twwells.com> <17912@rpp386.cactus.org>
Reply-To: dan@charyb.UUCP (Dan Mick)
Distribution: usa
Organization: KFW Corporation, Newbury Park, CA
Lines: 26

In article <17912@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes:
|In article <1990Feb9.214044.26382@twwells.com>, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
|> 
|> 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!

Oh, bullshit.  This tempest-in-teapot about not being able to use putc with
a second argument with side effects is *stupid*, and Bill was calling it
stupid.  "The guy" has had about six breaks, as he hasn't been flamed for
the first six times he's posted this idiotic whine, and Bill finally lost
his temper (about a millisecond before I lost mine).

Listen to the argument, and don't respond to a flame simply to be a cotton-
wool sweetie-pie, and don't *bother* telling folks to calm down, ESPECIALLY
not in public!