X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:03:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender: peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Use of FILE in sprintf/sscanf
In-Reply-To: <uwu85d2ol.fsf@elta.co.il>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.58.0401071147490.21799@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References: <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0401051334160 DOT 4628 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
 <uwu85d2ol DOT fsf AT elta DOT co DOT il>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> True, although hiding FILE from library internals is IMHO not a very
> important goal.

Yes, but this also makes the code more modular, and I think that is
important.

> I'd prefer not to have this on a header file.  I don't like included
> files that define executable code; for one, they make debugging
> harder.

Maybe so, but the getc/putc internals are also inline functions in
this same header, and they are more complex that my string opening
functions.  Have the getc/putc functions caused any problems with
debugging?

> I'm sure a way can be found to use your code without putting it on a
> header file, though.

Yes, but I'm not convinced that's really necessary.

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/