🚀 go-pugleaf

> From: baynes@ukpsshp1.serigate.philips.nl (Stephen Baynes)
> 
> :     printf("%P", x);                   AND
> :     printf("%*P", field_width, x);
> 
> : This looks much more reasonable and readable to me.
> 
> You would have to change the rules for varargs functions so that the
> precision is passed for all parameters.
> 
> Simpler and better would be to change the rules for varargs functions so
> that instead of the current inegral promotions the promotion is always
to
> the largest integer type. Then one does not even need any modifer. Also
> varargs functions become a lot easier to write as you no longer have to
> worry if the argument is smaller or larger than int.

But what about implementations that have no largest type, i.e., where the
type is arbitrarily long.  This scheme would be impractical.  Also, this
change would be a major change for vendors: code would become binary
incompatible because the stack alignment changed.  See my previous posting
about what constitutes a porting effort.  Regardless, this still doesn't
get rid ofthe variable argument macros because you still need to deal
with floating point types and structures.

-FF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(``I only use AOL for reading netnews.'')
Frank Farance, Farance Inc.
E-mail: frank@farance.com, Telephone: +1 212 486 4700
ISO JTC1/SC22/WG14 & ANSI X3J11 (C Programming Language) Project Editor