24 Jan
2013
24 Jan
'13
12:34 p.m.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Larry McVoy wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:46:51PM -0500, John Cowan
wrote:
That syntax makes sense. Though you'd prolly need a "#define
fread(b,s,n,f) freadn(f,b,((s)*(n)))", right? For backward compatibility.
Ronald Natalie scripsit:
As a SPARC guy (in the past), I think it may have had something to do
about alignment.
That said, I hate the fread/fwrite interfaces. We're fixing them in
our stdio. freadn(f, buf, n).
Why on earth did they preserve the silly
fread/fwrite size feature
that just multiplies the two middle args together long after it was
realized that portability doesn't demand making such a distinction.
I like the idea: essentially it's about reading or writing an array
of a specified type.