Talk:Stdarg.h: Difference between revisions
WikiProject assessment |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject C/C++|class=Start|importance=High|c=yes}} |
{{WikiProject C/C++|class=Start|importance=High|c=yes}} |
||
==Becoming a manual page?== |
|||
This article seems to be a tutorial or manual page. I question the need for this page to exist at all. [[Special:Contributions/75.119.90.35|75.119.90.35]] ([[User talk:75.119.90.35|talk]]) 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Untitled== |
==Untitled== |
Revision as of 18:05, 24 October 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stdarg.h article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
C/C++ Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Becoming a manual page?
This article seems to be a tutorial or manual page. I question the need for this page to exist at all. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Untitled
C++
> though permitted, is deprecated in C++.
So what are the alternatives to in C++ ? --RzR 13:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Using <cstdarg>. Eric119 00:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Damm useful page! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.160.101 (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Infinite number of arguments
Shouldn't that be "arbitrary number of arguments"? You can't even create a call containing an infinite number of arguments, much less execute that call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.193.114 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Varg pass-through
Is it possible for a varg function to process a couple of args, then pass the tail of the varg list through to another varg function? It would be useful to discuss that case. — MaxEnt 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Terminating with -1
I was wrong: this example shows the use of -1 as an end-of-args marker, whereas the man page example (man stdarg) just keeps pulling arguments as long as more of them are demanded by the format string, the same as printf does, which is why there is no need for an end-of-args marker value. But I still think i >= 0 is a better test than i != -1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.148.56 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)