🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Smith <msmith@mpx.com.au> writes:

>Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>[Snip]
>> 
>> But all such comments pale into insignificance when you realise that
>> _in context_ the whole chunk can be written as
>> 
>>  1.     sprintf(lpReportLint->szAddress, "%06lX", lBufIndex);
>> I won't defend the coding style, but I will defend the avoidance of 
>sprintf().  When you build a DLL using MS Visual C/C++, a number of
>standard library functions are not permitted - including the printf
>and scanf family.  Thus, when developing Windows tools it is unwise

    i'm not sure i actually believe that MS Visual C/C++ is
    _that_ broken.  sprintf() does not in any way assume the
    existence of a console, and there is _no_ reason why a
    compiler of suitable quality (or standardness) cannot
    implement it. (fortunately, the Windows compiler that I use
    has no problem with DLLs that call sprintf()).

    wsprintf() is essentially sprintf() without floating point
    support.   since it's provided by the "OS" you will
    presumably save a little space in your objects, but that
    seems to be small gain for the loss of functionality and the
    probable (marginal) peformance hit.

 --xmsb
 xmsb@borland.com