Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?

From: Eric Sosman <esosman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:29:02 -0500

Jack Klein wrote:

[...]
FILE cannot truly be an opaque type as far standard C is concerned for
the simple reason that the standard requires some functions to be
implemented as macros, and so some of the details must be exposed by
<stdio.h>.


    What functions that deal with FILE or FILE* are required
to be macros?

--
Eric Sosman
esosman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

References:
- Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
  - From: Albert
- Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
  - From: Jack Klein
- Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
  - From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
  - From: Jack Klein

Prev by Date: Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
Next by Date: Re: What's the guideline for dealing with unwanted chars in input stream?
Previous by thread: Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
Next by thread: Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
... Jack Klein said: ... > the simple reason that the standard requires some functions to be ... That's how most of my opaque type destructors look. ...
(comp.lang.c)
Re: What is a null pointer constant?
... > of standard macros, which is exactly what I questioned. ... >> I think only the same care is needed about keywords. ... Jun, Woong ...
(comp.std.c)
Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
... >> FILE cannot truly be an opaque type as far standard C is concerned for ... >> the simple reason that the standard requires some functions to be ... >> implemented as macros, and so some of the details must be exposed by ...
(comp.lang.c)
Re: Adding the ability to add functions into structures?
... FILE cannot truly be an opaque type as far standard C is concerned for the simple reason that the standard requires some functions to be implemented as macros, and so some of the details must be exposed by. ... I'm also aware that the Standard makes special provision for getcand putc, by the way) that make macro implementations easier. ...
(comp.lang.c)
Re: getc() vs. fgetc()
... Is there a reason that the standard did not ... > function with the semantics as these macros. ... > been introduced as the function versions of getc and putc. ... > containing side effects as the FILE pointer argument, ...
(comp.lang.c)