• Tyro (6/6) Dec 20 2004 Is there anything fundamentally wrong with a variadic function parameter...
• Russ Lewis (4/8) Dec 20 2004 This might be an interesting way to implement a scanf alternative.
• Tyro (3/11) Dec 20 2004 This is precisely my reason for asking! Though out is better for scanf()...
• Simon Buchan (22/29) Dec 21 2004 I would rather have a little more contol in general on these functions, ...

Tyro <Tyro_member pathlink.com> writes:

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with a variadic function parameters being
defined as such:

void foo(inout ...){}

If so, please explain why. Otherwise please add this feature. 

Thanks,
Andrew

Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:

Tyro wrote:
 Is there anything fundamentally wrong with a variadic function parameters being
 defined as such:
 
 void foo(inout ...){}

This might be an interesting way to implement a scanf alternative. 
Although with something like scanf, 'out' might make more sense than 
'inout'.

Tyro <Tyro_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <cq777v$nmp$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Russ Lewis says...
Tyro wrote:
 Is there anything fundamentally wrong with a variadic function parameters being
 defined as such:
 
 void foo(inout ...){}

This might be an interesting way to implement a scanf alternative. 
Although with something like scanf, 'out' might make more sense than 
'inout'.

This is precisely my reason for asking! Though out is better for scanf(), I
think both out and inout should be authorized for use in this manner.

"Simon Buchan" <currently no.where> writes:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:28:58 +0000 (UTC), Tyro <Tyro_member pathlink.com>  
wrote:

 Is there anything fundamentally wrong with a variadic function  
 parameters being
 defined as such:

 void foo(inout ...){}

 If so, please explain why. Otherwise please add this feature.

 Thanks,
 Andrew

I would rather have a little more contol in general on these functions,  
things
like foo(bar ree, out uint outArgs..., in uint inArgs...) {} would be nice,
(although I can't think of an explicit exapmle where you want this checked  
at
compile-time) but I wonder what the syntax would be like? inArgs.ptr?
outArgs[4].typeid? Could be interesting to discuss, at least.

-- 
"Unhappy Microsoft customers have a funny way of becoming Linux,
Salesforce.com and Oracle customers." - www.microsoft-watch.com:
"The Year in Review: Microsoft Opens Up"
--
"I plan on at least one critical patch every month, and I haven't been  
disappointed."
- Adam Hansen, manager of security at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
(Quote from http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1736104,00.asp)
--
"It's been a challenge to "reteach or retrain" Web users to pay for  
content, said Pizey"
-Wired website: "The Incredible Shrinking Comic"