🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4g2i5q$dj7@meaddata.lexis-nexis.com> christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:

>In article <stephenkDMuGux.Iot@netcom.com>, stephenk@netcom.com (Stephen Knilans) writes:
>
>|> If you write code to directly convert a binary number to a human
>|> readable version, and find that it won't work the same on all
>|> processors, this is NOT the fault of C!!!!!!!!!!!  It is because
>|> MANY processors are different!
>
>|> The libraries are there for a REASON!  There are possibly HUNDREDS
>|> of number formats, and it is very difficult to provide for all.
>
>Look, I've shown a bunch of things with this thread.  _none_ of the
>respondants pointed out that there is a "standard" library call to do
>this: itoa().  As documented in K&R (I'd cite page numbers, but I
>don't have it at this desk.)

Your ignorance shows up again.  K&R simply shows how to write a function
to perform the conversion and names it itoa.  K&R has an appendix (B)
which documents the standard C library.  There is no itoa function there.

>As _assumed_ in Stroustrup, 2nd ed.
>Guess what?  This "standard" library call, in actual practice, isn't
>standard.                                

It's not standard because it's not in the ANSI C standard.  It's as
simple as that.  Not all the examples in K&R made their way into the
C standard.

>Each platform has its own version.  One version is even
>wrong in the manufacturers on-line documentation.  Is this a fault
>with the "Standard" for C or C++ libraries?  Or just the
>implementations.  You tell me.

Just the implementations and the people stupid enough to use vendor
specific functions when a standard C alternative exists.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland