🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DFs6G0.FF@stdc.demon.co.uk>,
Clive D.W. Feather <clive@demon.net> wrote:
>In article <44m623$5hl@ae-sun01.alden.com>,
>Stan Ryckman <sgr@ae-sun01.alden.com> wrote:
>>In article <DFnL25.5Ew@stdc.demon.co.uk>,
>>Clive D.W. Feather <clive@demon.net> wrote:
>>> The symbol printf will always be reserved, but there is no guarantee that
>>> the function will be available to the programmer in a freestanding
>>> implementation.
>> Is the same true of sprintf?  I can see why printf might cause
>> difficulty in a freestanding environment, but not sprintf.

>Yes. It's not a question of difficulty, but principle.

OK, I'm a fish.  I'll take the bait.  What principle?

(I'm not trying to be obtuse here; the 3 freestanding implementations
I have used -- two were pre-standard-C, BTW -- all provided a sprintf
that worked just fine, along with a printf which would send one's code
into hyperspace.  The reasons for both behaviours make sense to me.
And trying to develop code for an embedded system which needed
some minimal text formatting capabilities but didn't have sprintf
would have been a real pain.)

Cheers,
Stan.
-- 
HELP!  I'M BEING HELD PRISONER IN A .SIGNATURE FACTORY!
    Stan Ryckman   sgr@alden.com