Re: [xmlroff] ...->sprintf (...)

[Tim W. <tw...@re...>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:50:49PM +0000, Tony Graham wrote:

> While 'sprintf' is actually not evocative, or descriptive, or easily
> rolling off the tongue, it is well known.  Would gcc complain if it
> was '->sprintf_func'?  Are there any other suggestions for a name?

Actually, changing this:
  ...->sprintf (...)
to this:
  (...->sprintf) (...)

is enough to stop the macro expansion.

Tim.
*/