🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert F. Monroe wrote:
: 
: In article: <4fst4u$2f1@solutions.solon.com>  Michael Smith <msmith@mpx.com.au> writes:
: 
: > 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
: > to rely on these functions - you might want to include the tools in
: > a DLL.
: >
: > Yes I do think that MS leaving these functions out is realy stupid,
: > but you have to work with the tools you have.
: 
: What conceivable use could there be for either printf or scanf in a
: Windows DLL? The very nature of Windows I/O would cause them to only
: produce garbage. I can't think of any reason why they would be in
: a Windows library (with the exception of a 'QuickWin' type program, but
: that is a different story and printf and scanf are in those libraries).

Note that Michael Smith said the printf and scanf *families* of
functions; these include sprintf and sscanf.

Microsoft does supply the - almost - similar wsprintf and vwsprintf
functions as part of the Windows API, but these are poor substitutes.

We're straying from system-independent C here; I would suggest sending
followups to comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc.