Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #26631

Re: packed structs

Show all headers | View raw

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>> JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
>>> <snip>
>>>>    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).
>>> 
>>> The main departure from sprintf is that literal characters are not
>>> copied to the destination.  That's going to look very odd at first
>>> glance.
>>
>> Impossible to avoid (I think): what are you supposed to do with
>>   smemf(mem,"deaf"); ?
>> Is that 4 ascii chars or two hex bytes?
> 
> My point was that its 4 chars (the encoding is whatever your C
> implementation decides, it need not be ASCII) in sprintf and not doing
> that causes a difference.  You said you'd aimed for (or achieved)
> "minimal unavoidable syntax differences".
> 
>> Somehow, the user to has specify what he wants.
>> My solution:
>>   smemf(mem,"deaf %s"); or smemf(mem,"deaf %x");
>> where a format specification preceded by a literal
>> is applied to that literal rather than eating the next arg.
> 
> In sprintf et. al. the number of required arguments is equal to the
> number of format specifiers and everything else is literal bytes.  I am
> not saying this is wrong, I am saying that it does not match my notion
> of "minimal unavoidable syntax differences" from sprintf.
> <snip>

Well, part of what you snipped was my request for an alternative.
Lacking that, it matches the notion of "minimal unavoidable
syntax differences" because of the "unavoidable" part.
You have to somehow deal with "deaf". And, even worse, with "10",
which could be ascii/decimal/hex/bits, and which I deal with
in one consistent way, "10%s"/"10%d"/"10%x"/"10%b".
   For someone familiar and comfortable with sprintf formats,
that's the most intuitively sensible way I could think of to
deal with the problem. And it >>must<< be dealt with somehow.
If you've got a better idea, I'd be happy to code it.
Otherwise, it's an unavoidable difference.
-- 
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