Re: packed structs

From	JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: packed structs
Date	2012-09-23 23:23 +0000
Organization	PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID	<k3o5mb$1ib$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink)
References	<k3j5or$q37$1@reader1.panix.com> <k3jaun$8al$1@dont-email.me> <k3jmbi$qgf$1@reader1.panix.com> <k3ne96$bja$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 22-Sep-12 01:37, JohnF wrote:
>> I'd actually finished (what I think is) a more elegant solution,
>> that I called smemf() that's like memcpy() but under format
>> control, including additonal format specifiers for hex, for bits,
>> and for other stuff. The code actually works fine, but still
>> uncompleted is 723 lines (though that includes >>many<< comments),
>> which is somewhat of a tail-wagging-dog situation which I also
>> want to avoid.
> 
> Your smemf() looks interesting, but I'm curious why you went with that
> syntax (which, despite claiming to be similar to printf, doesn't seem to
> end up looking much like it) rather than leveraging the syntax of an
> existing system for the same purpose, eg. Perl's pack/unpack.
> S

You didn't read all the followups -- I wasn't aware of perl's
(or python's) pack/unpack, but they were brought to my attention
(thanks again, guys). Then I indeed said I'd be reading up more
carefully about them all, and trying to re-spec smemf() (and maybe
rename it -- pack or spackf???) based on the all that stuff,
as the best C variant I can come up with.
   By the way, compared with those pack/unpack formats, I think
smemf()'s format string syntax is a lot more C/sprintf-like
(could you be more specific?). That's, of course, the trick:
access all functionality from a format string syntax that's
immediately intuitively sensible to both (a)people already
familiar with perl and/or python pack/unpack and maybe C/sprintf,
as well as (b)people only familiar with C/sprintf. Since I'm a
b-type myself, and wasn't even aware of the a-types until
brought to my attention here, the C/sprintf look-alike was
my sole original goal (which I'd thought was pretty successful,
modulo the minimal unavoidable syntax differences due to
fundamental functional requirements differences).
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-22 01:54 +0000
  Re: packed structs Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-09-21 23:22 -0400
    Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-22 06:37 +0000
      Re: packed structs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-22 13:47 +0100
        Re: packed structs Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-22 14:00 +0100
        Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-22 15:42 +0000
      Re: packed structs Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-09-22 09:13 -0400
      Re: packed structs Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2012-09-23 03:10 +0200
        Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-23 02:10 +0000
      Re: packed structs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-23 11:44 -0500
        Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-23 23:23 +0000
          Re: packed structs Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-24 01:59 +0100
            Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-24 02:54 +0000
              Re: packed structs Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-24 04:38 +0100
                Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-24 04:07 +0000
                Re: packed structs Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-24 12:16 +0100
                Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-24 11:45 +0000
              Re: packed structs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-24 10:18 +0100
                Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-24 11:04 +0000
                Re: packed structs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-30 14:21 -0500
                Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-10-01 07:34 +0000
          Re: packed structs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-30 13:52 -0500
    Re: packed structs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-22 01:31 -0700
      Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-22 08:53 +0000
        Re: packed structs Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-09-22 14:17 +0000
          Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-22 15:33 +0000
            Re: packed structs Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-09-22 20:43 +0000
            Re: packed structs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-22 22:52 +0100
          Re: packed structs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-22 13:47 -0700
            Re: packed structs JohnF <john@forkosh.com.com> - 2012-09-23 00:19 +0000
              Re: packed structs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-23 13:32 +1200
                Re: packed structs JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-23 02:16 +0000
        Re: packed structs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-23 10:33 +1200
          Re: packed structs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-23 01:38 -0700
  Re: packed structs The Great Firewall of China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-21 21:29 -0700

csiph-web