Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcnc!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Check the Arg Count
Message-ID: <594@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10-Jan-87 20:54:52 EST
Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.594
Posted: Sat Jan 10 20:54:52 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Jan-87 09:38:02 EST
References: <3395@amd.UUCP> <4886@mimsy.UUCP> <3101@diamond.Diamond.BBN.COM> <1634@enea.UUCP>
Organization: McGill University, Montreal
Lines: 20

In article <1634@enea.UUCP>, sommar@enea.UUCP (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
> To comment the debate in general I must I don't understand it.
> Saying that a C compiler shouldn't check for correct numbers of
> procedure parameters, just because printf() and scanf() accepts
> variable parameters lists makes no sense.  These are standard
> routines aren't they?  Thus the compiler do recognize them.

NO.  The compiler does not treat scanf(), printf(), etc, any
differently from any routine which is defined in another file.  They
are "standard" only in that (almost) all environments which support C
also support these routines.  Pascal, on the other hand, does things
for write(), writeln(), etc, differently from the way it handles calls
to user routines.

					der Mouse

USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
     think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse
Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
ARPAnet: think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse@harvard.harvard.edu