From: antispam@fricas.org   
      
   Michael S  wrote:   
   > On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 13:04:34 +0000   
   > Bart  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 06/02/2026 12:47, Michael S wrote:   
   >> > On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 12:39:55 +0000   
   >> > Bart  wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >> On 06/02/2026 05:10, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   >> >>> Bart  writes:   
   >> >>> [...]   
   >> >>>> /Some/ compilers with /some/ options will /sometimes/ tell you   
   >> >>>> when you've got it wrong.   
   >> >>>>   
   >> >>>> But you first have to make an educated guess, or put in some   
   >> >>>> dummy format code.   
   >> >>>>   
   >> >>>> Eventually, it will compile. Until someone else builds your   
   >> >>>> program, using a slightly different set of headers where certain   
   >> >>>> types are defined, and then it might either give compiler   
   >> >>>> messages that they have to fix, or it show wrong results.   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>> That's not how I do it, and I don't think it's how most   
   >> >>> programmers do it.   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>> I know the rules well enough that I can usually write a correct   
   >> >>> format string in the first place.  If I make a mistake, gcc's   
   >> >>> warnings are a nice check.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> I guess you've never used printf-family functions via the FFI of   
   >> >> another language!   
   >> >>   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> > Vararg via FFI? Is it really a good idea?   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >> It's covered by platform ABIs of both Windows and SYS V.   
   >>   
   >   
   > My question was not about technical possibility. I understand that with   
   > enough of effort everything is possible.   
   > I asked whether it is a good idea.   
   > Is not it simpler for you and for your potential users to declare that   
   > your language can not call external C functions with variable number of   
   > arguments? To me it does not sound like this ability is either necessary   
   > or very valuable.   
   >   
   > Above I assume that we are talking about your scripting language.   
   >   
   > W.r.t. your other language, I have no strong opinion. But my weak   
   > opinion is that it also does not need it, possibly with exception for   
   > ability to do few (very few, hopefully) historically idiotically   
   > defined Unix system calls that can be handled individually as special   
   > cases.   
      
   Well, some important interfaces depend on varargs functions.  And   
   while you may handle such cases via user-written wrappers, it is   
   much nicer if FFI machinery handles varargs.   
      
   --   
                                 Waldek Hebisch   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)