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