Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #35642 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sharwan Joram <sharwan.joram@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-08-23 10:15 -0700 |
| Last post | 2013-08-26 09:23 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Sharwan Joram <sharwan.joram@gmail.com> - 2013-08-23 10:15 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-23 14:05 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Sharwan Joram <sharwan.joram@gmail.com> - 2013-08-23 11:17 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-23 14:51 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2013-08-24 21:50 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 15:36 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-23 13:18 -0500
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-23 20:00 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-23 21:37 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-23 14:16 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-23 17:50 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-23 22:56 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-24 13:45 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-24 06:20 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-24 20:16 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-24 16:51 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-25 12:27 +1200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-24 18:02 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-25 15:03 +1200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-25 08:09 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 14:02 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-25 22:43 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-25 02:21 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 19:41 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 15:15 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-24 02:48 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2013-08-24 17:02 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Sharwan Joram <sharwan.joram@gmail.com> - 2013-08-24 12:05 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-24 15:14 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 15:38 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-25 02:10 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Sharwan Joram <sharwan.joram@gmail.com> - 2013-08-25 00:30 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-25 21:13 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2013-08-25 11:13 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-25 10:03 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 14:07 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-25 18:47 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-26 06:40 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 06:31 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-26 07:44 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-26 15:15 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 07:50 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-08-26 16:08 +0200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 11:42 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-08-26 18:16 +0200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 17:10 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-08-27 09:27 +0200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 07:42 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-27 18:38 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 15:14 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 14:23 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-27 16:06 -0600
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-27 15:14 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-27 23:17 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-28 20:34 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-28 11:06 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-28 22:31 -0500
[OT] significant digits James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-29 06:53 -0400
Re: [OT] significant digits Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-29 16:51 -0500
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-28 15:05 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-08-28 00:05 +0200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-28 10:08 +1200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 18:30 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-08-28 09:39 +0200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-28 04:04 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-28 22:35 -0500
[OT] English [was: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer] James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-28 07:10 -0400
Re: [OT] English [was: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer] David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-08-28 14:50 +0200
Re: [OT] English [was: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer] ralph <nt_consulting@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-28 12:29 -0500
Re: [OT] English [was: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer] Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2013-08-30 00:57 -0700
Re: [OT] English [was: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer] David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-08-30 10:07 +0200
Re: [OT] English [was: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer] Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-28 20:46 +0300
Re: [OT] English [was: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer] James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-28 15:13 -0400
Re: [OT] English [was: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer] Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-29 08:40 +1200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-28 03:58 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-08-28 09:58 +0200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 11:45 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-27 23:23 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 16:47 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-28 03:29 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 16:54 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 13:26 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2013-08-28 22:27 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-29 05:18 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2013-09-04 00:01 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-04 05:40 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-27 08:54 +1200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-26 21:09 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-27 09:16 +1200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-26 21:39 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-27 09:42 +1200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-26 21:52 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-08-26 17:46 -0500
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 17:12 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-27 09:17 +1200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 18:45 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-27 11:03 +1200
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 08:52 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 17:20 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 10:59 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-26 11:31 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 19:30 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 19:26 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 13:37 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 22:20 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-27 16:42 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 10:28 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-28 20:29 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2013-08-28 22:27 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-26 19:18 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 15:41 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-26 12:58 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 20:52 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-26 14:35 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-27 00:48 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2013-08-28 22:27 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-29 03:40 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2013-09-04 00:01 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-29 05:27 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-30 01:40 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-08-26 17:51 -0500
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-27 08:24 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 08:12 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 11:48 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 13:28 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-26 20:40 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 14:36 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-26 21:43 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 21:59 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 15:26 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-27 16:52 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-28 16:16 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-28 10:54 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-28 20:56 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-28 19:23 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-28 23:31 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-27 07:00 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 11:41 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-28 16:21 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-28 10:57 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-28 21:27 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-28 14:53 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-27 16:37 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-27 16:29 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-28 16:11 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-28 02:45 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-28 20:47 +0000
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-28 16:22 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-29 13:36 -0500
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-29 20:06 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-30 10:48 -0500
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-30 18:34 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-27 16:25 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 10:06 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-27 18:21 +0300
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 12:16 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-28 02:25 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 11:51 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-26 02:55 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-26 03:04 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-25 19:02 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 20:01 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-25 22:49 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-25 23:07 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-25 23:20 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-26 13:03 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 07:02 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-26 08:27 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 11:52 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 08:57 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-26 04:53 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-26 12:58 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Sharwan Joram <sharwan.joram@gmail.com> - 2013-08-26 06:40 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-26 15:28 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-26 14:54 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 18:22 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 15:31 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-27 01:08 +0100
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-26 22:02 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-26 21:07 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 08:29 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-26 08:46 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 08:59 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-26 09:19 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 10:47 -0700
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-26 12:18 -0400
Re: Memory corruption on freeing a pointer to pointer gdotone@gmail.com - 2013-08-26 09:23 -0700
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-28 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsl1sqqs.kka.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #36031 |
On 2013-08-28, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > From your point of view, I would expect that consistently putting the > constant on the left would be no better or worse than consistently > putting it on the right. Indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-28 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2393196d-2ccc-40c4-bda8-476d64e9bc95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36047 |
On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:27:56 PM UTC+1, Ike Naar wrote: > On 2013-08-28, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > > > From your point of view, I would expect that consistently putting the > > constant on the left would be no better or worse than consistently > > putting it on the right. > > Indeed. > The right side of your visual field goes to the left hemisphere first, the left side to the right. So actually changing the order changes the way we process the information. That's why languages which use the root consonant system are written right-left, whilst languages which use the prefix-stem-suffix system are written left-right. In the former, you want to see the root before you decipher the word, in the latter it's more linear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-27 16:37 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87fvtvz231.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #35841 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes:
...
> If your only criterion for choosing between two different ways
> of writing something is that they have the same language-level
> semantics, that should mean you have no preference between arr[i]
> and i[arr], or between
>
> if (foo) {
> /* ... */
> }
>
> and
>
> if (!foo); else {
> /* ... */
> }
Don't stop there - this is equivalent too:
if (!!!!!!!!!!!!!foo); else {
Phil
--
If "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear" from privacy-invading
technologies and policies, then law-abiding governments should have
nothing to fear from whistleblowers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-27 16:29 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87k3j7z2gh.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #35821 |
Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes:
> On 2013-08-25, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> >> On 08/24/2013 03:05 PM, Sharwan Joram wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> if ( NULL == parameters[parametercount]){
> >
> > This is what's known as a "Yoda conndition"
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_Conditions>. I know that a lot of
> > programmers like them, and for somewhat valid reasons, but personally I
> > find them jarring and unnecessary. Personally, I'd write that as:
> >
> > if (parameters[parametercount] == NULL) {
>
> Does it matter? The == operator is symmetric, (X==Y) == (Y==X).
>
> If (X==Y) is jarring and unnecessary, then, for symmetry reasons
> (Y==X) is unnecessary and jarring.
In simple term - bollocks.
Was 10 seconds less than the time you spent thinking before posting
your reply?
Phil
--
If "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear" from privacy-invading
technologies and policies, then law-abiding governments should have
nothing to fear from whistleblowers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-28 16:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsl1s8a1.kka.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #35941 |
On 2013-08-27, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes:
>> On 2013-08-25, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>> >> On 08/24/2013 03:05 PM, Sharwan Joram wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >>> if ( NULL == parameters[parametercount]){
>> >
>> > This is what's known as a "Yoda conndition"
>> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_Conditions>. I know that a lot of
>> > programmers like them, and for somewhat valid reasons, but personally I
>> > find them jarring and unnecessary. Personally, I'd write that as:
>> >
>> > if (parameters[parametercount] == NULL) {
>>
>> Does it matter? The == operator is symmetric, (X==Y) == (Y==X).
>>
>> If (X==Y) is jarring and unnecessary, then, for symmetry reasons
>> (Y==X) is unnecessary and jarring.
>
> In simple term - bollocks.
>
> Was 10 seconds less than the time you spent thinking before posting
> your reply?
How long did you spend thinking about yours?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-28 02:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.ef3b681e0dc13b4705a1.20130828024558BST.877gf68u5l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #35821 |
Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes:
> On 2013-08-25, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>>> On 08/24/2013 03:05 PM, Sharwan Joram wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> if ( NULL == parameters[parametercount]){
>>
>> This is what's known as a "Yoda conndition"
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_Conditions>. I know that a lot of
>> programmers like them, and for somewhat valid reasons, but personally I
>> find them jarring and unnecessary. Personally, I'd write that as:
>>
>> if (parameters[parametercount] == NULL) {
>
> Does it matter? The == operator is symmetric, (X==Y) == (Y==X).
>
> If (X==Y) is jarring and unnecessary, then, for symmetry reasons
> (Y==X) is unnecessary and jarring.
That sounds like a quasi-mathematical argument, but mathematicians don't
do this. I can't recall ever seeing "let 0 = x" or "for all 2 < x" in a
maths paper[*] (it may have happened but the rarity is the thing). The
only place where it occurs with any frequency in the rather natural
notation for a range: "0 < x < 1". Mathematicians know that it is hard
enough to read the damn stuff, without the author throwing up
road-blocks in the way. We, as programmers, are in the same boat.
The people who know about this stuff (what's easy and what's hard to
read) are not computer scientists and logicians, but linguists and
psychologists. What little I know of both, strongly suggests that
natural language is easy for us, but maths and programming are not.
Narrowing that gap is likely to be helpful, and English, for one, is not
symmetrical with its verbs: there is a subject and an object even when
that is not logical. We are not Vulcan.
[*] You might see that in a text about formal logic where 0 is being
defined, but that's just another confirmation of my point.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-28 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsl1soel.kka.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #35999 |
On 2013-08-28, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes: >> If (X==Y) is jarring and unnecessary, then, for symmetry reasons >> (Y==X) is unnecessary and jarring. > > That sounds like a quasi-mathematical argument, but mathematicians don't > do this. I can't recall ever seeing "let 0 = x" or "for all 2 < x" in a > maths paper[*] (it may have happened but the rarity is the thing). The > only place where it occurs with any frequency in the rather natural > notation for a range: "0 < x < 1". Mathematicians know that it is hard > enough to read the damn stuff, without the author throwing up > road-blocks in the way. We, as programmers, are in the same boat. In many places where I've seen the construct "let X = Y" it's used to introduce the name X as a placeholder for expression Y, not to express the equality of expressions X and Y. Definitions are not symmetric, and some authors use an asymmetric operator like ':=' instead of '=' for this reason. I just re-visited a popular mathematical web page [*] that happens to be in my bookmark list, and noticed it has quite a lot of equations with a constant on the left hand side. Notice, in particular, how equation (73) has the constant the right hand side, where equation (74) has the same constant on the left hand side of the equality operator. Neither of these equations looks jarring (to me). [*] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiFormulas.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-28 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnsixtflip.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #36045 |
Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes:
[...]
> I just re-visited a popular mathematical web page [*] that happens
> to be in my bookmark list, and noticed it has quite a lot of
> equations with a constant on the left hand side.
> Notice, in particular, how equation (73) has the constant the right
> hand side, where equation (74) has the same constant on the left
> hand side of the equality operator. Neither of these equations
> looks jarring (to me).
>
> [*] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiFormulas.html
The constant in question is pi (written as the Greek letter which I
won't reproduce here for the sake of primitive newsreader software).
Equation 74 is, roughly:
pi = sqrt(6 * ( 1 + ... ) )
Yes, pi is a mathematical constant, but that equation is not the same
kind of thing you'd see in a C if statement. It's almost a definition
of pi. More precisely, it's a way to compute its value, almost but not
quite analogous to a C assignment rather than to an "==" equality
comparison. ("==" asks whether two expressions are equal; a
mathematical equation *asserts* that they're equal.)
It makes perfect sense, even to me, to put the constant on the left side
-- for reasons that don't apply to `if (NULL == ptr)` in C.
As for equation 73, it's of the form:
[formula] = [another formula] = pi
and it appears (if I understand it) to be a left-to-right derivation, so
the order is logically significant, at least to a human reader.
TL;DR: Mathematical equations are not C equality tests.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-29 13:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kvo4ap$fd9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36051 |
On 8/28/2013 6:22 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes:
> [...]
>> I just re-visited a popular mathematical web page [*] that happens
>> to be in my bookmark list, and noticed it has quite a lot of
>> equations with a constant on the left hand side.
>> Notice, in particular, how equation (73) has the constant the right
>> hand side, where equation (74) has the same constant on the left
>> hand side of the equality operator. Neither of these equations
>> looks jarring (to me).
>>
>> [*] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiFormulas.html
>
> The constant in question is pi (written as the Greek letter which I
> won't reproduce here for the sake of primitive newsreader software).
>
> Equation 74 is, roughly:
>
> pi = sqrt(6 * ( 1 + ... ) )
>
> Yes, pi is a mathematical constant, but that equation is not the same
> kind of thing you'd see in a C if statement. It's almost a definition
> of pi. More precisely, it's a way to compute its value, almost but not
> quite analogous to a C assignment rather than to an "==" equality
> comparison. ("==" asks whether two expressions are equal; a
> mathematical equation *asserts* that they're equal.)
>
> It makes perfect sense, even to me, to put the constant on the left side
> -- for reasons that don't apply to `if (NULL == ptr)` in C.
The rule under discussion is that constants should go on the right when
being compared to variables or formula that contain them. It's also in
direct response Ben saying that mathematicians tend to follow that rule.
As such, I find it a rather convincing rejoinder.
> As for equation 73, it's of the form:
>
> [formula] = [another formula] = pi
>
> and it appears (if I understand it) to be a left-to-right derivation, so
> the order is logically significant, at least to a human reader.
>
> TL;DR: Mathematical equations are not C equality tests.
>
Of course not, but someone was using a (supposed) mathematical
convention to justify a particular coding style.
My personal take on the issue is that the more important of the two
formulas being compared should be on the left side. On the math page in
question, pi is the important item, so it should be on the left. When
programming, the constant is rarely the more important.
Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-29 20:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.efc32a0c4650df3d3f66.20130829200629BST.87bo4g48qy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36082 |
Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> Of course not, but someone was using a (supposed) mathematical
> convention to justify a particular coding style.
That was me, but I did not want to not justify a coding style. (That
requires and assessment of pros and cons that probably won't be
universal, across projects). I was pointing out that mathematicians,
who could be relied on more than anyone to understand that 0 = x is the
same as x = 0, don't write such things any way round. There is, it
seems, a "natural" way which I suspect is related to the subject/object
asymmetry in English.
The example page contains several such examples ("the special case r=0",
"then c=0", "plugging x=1" and so on). The large formulas that Ike
pointed to are a distraction, because they are not analogous to the C
tests that sparked this sub-thread. I can't image "hence 0=x" not being
corrected by a journal editor. Of course here there is no "pro" -- no
advantage at all to writing it that way round -- only a "con" in terms
of the mental hiccup is causes.
> My personal take on the issue is that the more important of the two
> formulas being compared should be on the left side. On the math page
> in question, pi is the important item, so it should be on the
> left. When programming, the constant is rarely the more important.
That may be it, I don't know. Oddly, the object-oriented syntax
x.equal_to(0) was criticised (rightly in my view) because it is
asymmetric, but it probably matches what our brains are doing, when we
think in English, more closely than a symmetric operator does.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-30 10:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kvqesf$8r7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36085 |
On 8/29/2013 2:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> <snip>
> The example page contains several such examples ("the special case r=0",
> "then c=0", "plugging x=1" and so on). The large formulas that Ike
> pointed to are a distraction, because they are not analogous to the C
> tests that sparked this sub-thread. I can't image "hence 0=x" not being
> corrected by a journal editor. Of course here there is no "pro" -- no
> advantage at all to writing it that way round -- only a "con" in terms
> of the mental hiccup is causes.
I can think of three (two legitimate) reason why "hence 0=x" wouldn't be
"corrected" off the top of my head.
1) "0" is either being defined, or we are listing formulas that are
equal to zero. (Similar to the example page.)
2) It comes at the end of a sequence of equations where the 0 was
derived from the left hand side of the previous equations.
3) The editor missed it. :)
>> My personal take on the issue is that the more important of the two
>> formulas being compared should be on the left side. On the math page
>> in question, pi is the important item, so it should be on the
>> left. When programming, the constant is rarely the more important.
>
> That may be it, I don't know. Oddly, the object-oriented syntax
> x.equal_to(0) was criticised (rightly in my view) because it is
> asymmetric, but it probably matches what our brains are doing, when we
> think in English, more closely than a symmetric operator does.
Or maybe we are just used to seeing it as an operator rather than a
function call. I can't say I'm particularly fond of equal_to(x, 0) either.
Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-30 18:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.2db4f107b71f59f03ae4.20130830183417BST.871u5b2icm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36141 |
Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> writes:
> On 8/29/2013 2:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> <snip>
>> The example page contains several such examples ("the special case r=0",
>> "then c=0", "plugging x=1" and so on). The large formulas that Ike
>> pointed to are a distraction, because they are not analogous to the C
>> tests that sparked this sub-thread. I can't image "hence 0=x" not being
>> corrected by a journal editor. Of course here there is no "pro" -- no
>> advantage at all to writing it that way round -- only a "con" in terms
>> of the mental hiccup is causes.
>
> I can think of three (two legitimate) reason why "hence 0=x" wouldn't
> be "corrected" off the top of my head.
>
> 1) "0" is either being defined, or we are listing formulas that are
> equal to zero. (Similar to the example page.)
Yes, I covered that case in my original message, but I didn't think to
repeat it. It's really not a special case. 0 is simply the symbol
being constrained by the condition, just a x is in the more usual case.
> 2) It comes at the end of a sequence of equations where the 0 was
> derived from the left hand side of the previous equations.
Maybe. Not sure I like it even in this case. Without the "hence" I
think it's more likely to be left alone.
> 3) The editor missed it. :)
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-27 16:25 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87ob8jz2my.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #35783 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> > On 08/24/2013 03:05 PM, Sharwan Joram wrote:
> [...]
> >> if ( NULL == parameters[parametercount]){
>
> This is what's known as a "Yoda conndition"
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_Conditions>. I know that a lot of
> programmers like them, and for somewhat valid reasons, but personally I
> find them jarring and unnecessary.
They are a shibolleth for me. If I see them, I am 99% sure the code
was written by a fuckwit or a newb, and I should be very very careful
about everything else from the same source. As most of the time I'm
looking at Linux kernel patches, the signs that seem to go hand in
hand with this yoda code are a complete inability to follow the
correct coding style, (such as use of butt-ugly Hungarian notation,
and obfuscatory typedefs), thousand line long functions, meaningless
abuse of volatile, incorrect locking or clear race conditions, cargo
cult atomics, useless or dangerous casts, ...
(And all of those examples were from 1 file, thank you NEZ for
throwing your wonderful ZNYV driver over the wall!)
My flatmate was explaining why his Ayuravedic diet doesn't permit
him to eat onion, garlic, or anything from that family - the
scriptures say that eating such things makes you angry and aggressive.
"But surely, if you have enough self control to follow an incredibly
strict vegetarian diet, then you have enough self control to not
get angry and aggressive after eating an onion bhaji?". "No, but..."
If you have the self control to write perverted yoda code, then
surely you've got the self control to not type '=' when you mean
'==', and to heed the new compiler warnings that you introduce when
making such a change?
Phil
--
If "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear" from privacy-invading
technologies and policies, then law-abiding governments should have
nothing to fear from whistleblowers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-27 10:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kvibp9$fus$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35940 |
On 08/27/2013 09:25 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: ... > If you have the self control to write perverted yoda code, then > surely you've got the self control to not type '=' when you mean > '==', I see no basis for the "perverted" label; it's nothing more than a style issue based upon linguistically-based prejudices. It takes far less self control to routinely use Yoda conditionals, than it takes to never type '=' when you mean '=='. That's primarily because of the difference between "routinely" and "never". I'm not sure that there's any one remotely human who has sufficient self control to never commit such a mistake; I'm willing to concede that you might not be covered by that statement. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-27 18:21 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87ioyrxiqj.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #35948 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > On 08/27/2013 09:25 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: > ... > > If you have the self control to write perverted yoda code, then > > surely you've got the self control to not type '=' when you mean > > '==', > > I see no basis for the "perverted" label; it's nothing more than a style > issue based upon linguistically-based prejudices. > > It takes far less self control to routinely use Yoda conditionals, than > it takes to never type '=' when you mean '=='. That's primarily because > of the difference between "routinely" and "never". I'm not sure that > there's any one remotely human who has sufficient self control to never > commit such a mistake; I'm willing to concede that you might not be > covered by that statement. You notice that dangling comma at the end of the bit you quoted? That comma implies there's more to that sentence. Phil -- If "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear" from privacy-invading technologies and policies, then law-abiding governments should have nothing to fear from whistleblowers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-27 12:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <521CD0CA.4040303@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #35953 |
On 08/27/2013 11:21 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > >> On 08/27/2013 09:25 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: >> ... >>> If you have the self control to write perverted yoda code, then >>> surely you've got the self control to not type '=' when you mean >>> '==', >> >> I see no basis for the "perverted" label; it's nothing more than a style >> issue based upon linguistically-based prejudices. >> >> It takes far less self control to routinely use Yoda conditionals, than >> it takes to never type '=' when you mean '=='. That's primarily because >> of the difference between "routinely" and "never". I'm not sure that >> there's any one remotely human who has sufficient self control to never >> commit such a mistake; I'm willing to concede that you might not be >> covered by that statement. > > You notice that dangling comma at the end of the bit you quoted? > That comma implies there's more to that sentence. True, but I cut out all the parts of you message that weren't relevant to my response. That's not to say that there was anything wrong with the parts that I did cut out, just that my response was not about those parts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-28 02:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.0ada0adfdd8514910553.20130828022539BST.87haea8v3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #35962 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > On 08/27/2013 11:21 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: >> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: >> >>> On 08/27/2013 09:25 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: >>> ... >>>> If you have the self control to write perverted yoda code, then >>>> surely you've got the self control to not type '=' when you mean >>>> '==', >>> >>> I see no basis for the "perverted" label; it's nothing more than a style >>> issue based upon linguistically-based prejudices. >>> >>> It takes far less self control to routinely use Yoda conditionals, than >>> it takes to never type '=' when you mean '=='. That's primarily because >>> of the difference between "routinely" and "never". I'm not sure that >>> there's any one remotely human who has sufficient self control to never >>> commit such a mistake; I'm willing to concede that you might not be >>> covered by that statement. >> >> You notice that dangling comma at the end of the bit you quoted? >> That comma implies there's more to that sentence. > > I cut out all the parts of you message No you didn't, I see some of it right there. :-) <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-27 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln38pvhsrb.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #35940 |
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>> > On 08/24/2013 03:05 PM, Sharwan Joram wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> if ( NULL == parameters[parametercount]){
>>
>> This is what's known as a "Yoda conndition"
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_Conditions>. I know that a lot of
>> programmers like them, and for somewhat valid reasons, but personally I
>> find them jarring and unnecessary.
>
> They are a shibolleth for me. If I see them, I am 99% sure the code
> was written by a fuckwit or a newb, and I should be very very careful
> about everything else from the same source.
[snip]
Let's just say that Yoda conditions upset me less than they seem to
upset you.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gdotone@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-26 02:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1284020-f8dc-41f6-8490-526e45b568d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35697 |
/* this runs to end, does it do what you what?, stick some data in and see */
/* tried to stick with your main thoughts, variable, etc */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
char **parameters;
int idx = 0;
int parameterCount = 5; /* initializing for the purposes of testing */
// char *saved_token; /* would suggest renaming this variable */
/* *saved_token must point to a string */
/* constant from somewhere. using a string */
/* const creates a memory error for my compiler */
/* Clang. but strtok() works fine with an */
/* char array */
char saved_token[] = "I was initialized by another function";
char *token; /* change from a char to char * */
parameters = (char **)malloc(parameterCount * sizeof(char *));
/* you should add your check using fprintf ... */
/* hopefully placing parameterCount in for header is not that big a */
/* for you */
parameterCount = 0;
/* i don't understand token && *token */
/* when are you trying to end the loop, at the end of the saved_token? */
for( token = strtok(saved_token, " "); token =='\0' ; token = strtok(NULL, " "))
{
parameters[parameterCount] = (char *)malloc(30 * sizeof (char *));
/* you should add your check using fprintf ... */
/* many have said just use strcpy(). well yeah it would copy the */
/* tokens in the space allocated */
/* calloc is nice too, but orignal code was not bad, in the sense */
/* of being poorly thought out. it was a good shot. */
/* the question is this the way you need to do it or just want to */
/* to do it */
memset(parameters[parameterCount], '\0', 30);
memcpy(parameters[parameterCount], token, strlen(token));
parameters[parameterCount] = token;
/* adding idx to your for loop so it can keep count of your tokens */
idx++; /* idx will count the number of tokens */
}
/* idx contains the number of tokens */
if (parameters != NULL)
{
for ( idx = 0; idx <= parameterCount; idx++ ) /* changed from orig */
{
free((void *)parameters+idx);
} /* braces added to draw attention only, not need of course */
free((void *) *parameters); /* not sure this frees what you want */
}
return 0;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gdotone@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-26 03:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8c3ee2b-d65d-4eed-b4ce-424c6b471c07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35822 |
On Monday, August 26, 2013 5:55:43 AM UTC-4, gdo...@gmail.com wrote:
> /* this runs to end, does it do what you what?, stick some data in and see */
>
> /* tried to stick with your main thoughts, variable, etc */
>
>
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> #include <string.h>
>
>
>
>
>
> int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
>
> {
>
>
>
> char **parameters;
>
> int idx = 0;
>
> int parameterCount = 5; /* initializing for the purposes of testing */
>
>
>
> // char *saved_token; /* would suggest renaming this variable */
>
> /* *saved_token must point to a string */
>
> /* constant from somewhere. using a string */
>
> /* const creates a memory error for my compiler */
>
> /* Clang. but strtok() works fine with an */
>
> /* char array */
>
>
>
> char saved_token[] = "I was initialized by another function";
>
>
>
> char *token; /* change from a char to char * */
>
>
>
>
>
> parameters = (char **)malloc(parameterCount * sizeof(char *));
>
> /* you should add your check using fprintf ... */
>
>
>
>
>
> /* hopefully placing parameterCount in for header is not that big a */
>
> /* for you */
>
>
>
> parameterCount = 0;
>
>
>
> /* i don't understand token && *token */
>
> /* when are you trying to end the loop, at the end of the saved_token? */
>
>
>
> for( token = strtok(saved_token, " "); token =='\0' ; token = strtok(NULL, " "))
>
> {
>
> parameters[parameterCount] = (char *)malloc(30 * sizeof (char *));
>
> /* you should add your check using fprintf ... */
>
>
>
> /* many have said just use strcpy(). well yeah it would copy the */
>
> /* tokens in the space allocated */
>
> /* calloc is nice too, but orignal code was not bad, in the sense */
>
> /* of being poorly thought out. it was a good shot. */
>
> /* the question is this the way you need to do it or just want to */
>
> /* to do it */
>
>
>
> memset(parameters[parameterCount], '\0', 30);
>
> memcpy(parameters[parameterCount], token, strlen(token));
>
> parameters[parameterCount] = token;
>
>
>
> /* adding idx to your for loop so it can keep count of your tokens */
>
> idx++; /* idx will count the number of tokens */
>
>
>
> }
>
>
>
> /* idx contains the number of tokens */
>
> if (parameters != NULL)
>
> {
>
> for ( idx = 0; idx <= parameterCount; idx++ ) /* changed from orig */
>
> {
>
> free((void *)parameters+idx);
>
> } /* braces added to draw attention only, not need of course */
>
>
>
> free((void *) *parameters); /* not sure this frees what you want */
>
>
>
> }
>
>
>
> return 0;
>
> }
i made a logical i see in the for loop... token != '\0'
i don't think even changing it to this is logically correct...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web