[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Just a question, and don't mind me if I am being rude, isn't this the
> WRONG PLACE for a "printf" function? Wouldn't an "itoa" function be more
> efficient and be less problematic?
This particular call could be so replaced, but it wouldn't solve the
general problem. snprintf has to work.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
