Are the but standard C++ functions such as itoa(int,char*) supported or not???

itoa(int,char*) is still a standard c++ function. Yet, the documentation of
Visual Studio .Net 2003 does not show it in any normal way - it is
mentioned as "side effects" in 4 results search but does not specify the
required include file.

If I use the global resolution symbol ::itoa(int,char*) it does not deny
the function altogether but claims that the function does not take 2
arguments (rather than telling me how many it is expected).

Anybody knows what is going on with this group of old C functions?

Thanks

Jeff
Mon May 10 14:13:33 CDT 2004

"David F" <David-White@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lmQnc.15389$Hs1.10538@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> itoa(int,char*) is still a standard c++ function. Yet, the documentation
of
> Visual Studio .Net 2003 does not show it in any normal way - it is
> mentioned as "side effects" in 4 results search but does not specify the
> required include file.
>
> If I use the global resolution symbol ::itoa(int,char*) it does not deny
> the function altogether but claims that the function does not take 2
> arguments (rather than telling me how many it is expected).
>
> Anybody knows what is going on with this group of old C functions?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vclib/html/_crt__itoa.2c_._i64toa.2c_._ui64toa.2c_._itow.2c_._i64tow.2c_._ui64tow.asp

--
Jeff Partch [VC++ MVP]

Doug
Mon May 10 14:20:09 CDT 2004

David F wrote:

>itoa(int,char*) is still a standard c++ function.

Nope, it never was standard, neither in C nor C++. (Dunno about C99, the
latest revision to the C Standard).

>Yet, the documentation of
>Visual Studio .Net 2003 does not show it in any normal way - it is
>mentioned as "side effects" in 4 results search but does not specify the
>required include file.
>
>If I use the global resolution symbol ::itoa(int,char*) it does not deny
>the function altogether but claims that the function does not take 2
>arguments (rather than telling me how many it is expected).
>
>Anybody knows what is going on with this group of old C functions?

Look up _itoa.

--
Doug Harrison
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++

Jerry
Mon May 10 19:52:14 CDT 2004

In article <lmQnc.15389$Hs1.10538@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
David-White@earthlink.net says...
> itoa(int,char*) is still a standard c++ function. Yet, the documentation of
> Visual Studio .Net 2003 does not show it in any normal way - it is
> mentioned as "side effects" in 4 results search but does not specify the
> required include file.
>
> If I use the global resolution symbol ::itoa(int,char*) it does not deny
> the function altogether but claims that the function does not take 2
> arguments (rather than telling me how many it is expected).

itoa is not, and never has been standard. Years ago (MS C 6.0) MS
changed its name from itoa to _itoa, but then for backwards
compatibility they added aliases for this and many similar non-
standard functions in oldnames.lib that allowed the older name to
continue working.

In any case, for most purposes, stringstream is easier to work with.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

David
Mon May 10 20:56:21 CDT 2004


"David F" <David-White@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lmQnc.15389$Hs1.10538@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> itoa(int,char*) is still a standard c++ function. Yet, the documentation
of
> Visual Studio .Net 2003 does not show it in any normal way - it is
> mentioned as "side effects" in 4 results search but does not specify the
> required include file.
>
> If I use the global resolution symbol ::itoa(int,char*) it does not deny
> the function altogether but claims that the function does not take 2
> arguments (rather than telling me how many it is expected).
>
> Anybody knows what is going on with this group of old C functions?
>
> Thanks
>
>

Igor
Tue May 11 15:24:49 CDT 2004

"Doug Harrison [MVP]" <dsh@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:lclv90t30v5jss4jdeo2fu50fmi0vdcqhl@4ax.com
> David F wrote:
>
>> itoa(int,char*) is still a standard c++ function.
>
> Nope, it never was standard, neither in C nor C++. (Dunno about C99,
> the latest revision to the C Standard).

Not in C99 either.
--
With best wishes,
Igor Tandetnik

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong." H.L. Mencken