|
From: Nicholas N. <n.n...@gm...> - 2009-08-22 22:24:31
|
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Bart Van Assche<bar...@gm...> wrote: > > I agree that most if not all VG_(printf)() calls should be replaced by > VG_(message)() calls, but I'm not sure that it is a good idea to > rename VG_(printf)() into something else. The motivation is this: if it should only be used in rare cases, then give it a non-standard name so that people don't use it by default without thinking. Nick |