From: Stewart, Robert (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-11 13:08:48
From: James Kanze [mailto:kanze_at_[hidden]]
> There's not just a problem of code compatibility; there's user
> compatibility. People know printf; any new format, they'd have to
> learn. If there are strong reasons for abandonning printf
> format, then
> it should certainly be done, but it shouldn't be done on a whim.
Don't lump everyone into the same state. I've used printf() in the past,
but I never used it extensively, and I always had to look up anything but
the most basic format specifiers. Even today, when I find it necessary to
use a printf() variant, I often try to use %i instead of %d for an integer.
There are increasing numbers of C++ programmers that have rarely or never
used printf(); they were weaned on IOStreams.
Given that by no means does everyone "know printf," abandoning print() is
not at all unreasonable, even on a whim. (Ok, not just on a whim, but I
would have absolutely no problem with totally abandoning the printf() format
specifiers for something less cryptic, equally capable, with type safety.
Susquehanna International Group, LLP
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk