`safe' putc (was avoiding stdio)

[Andrew Koenig]

In article <22169 at mimsy.umd.edu>, chris at mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:

> putc *is* *documented* as not being careful about its second parameter.
> If you do not like this, too bad:  Every vendor has a right to use this
> parameter several times in the macro expansion of putc().  Mistake or
> not, we are stuck with it.

Has anyone out there actually written a program that depends
for its correct operation on side effects of the second
argument of putc?  I can see it for the first argument,
but the second?
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark at europa.att.com