Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: the loop control |
| Date | 2011-10-31 11:35 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <4EAEC04B.9040102@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | <j8hrok$3cq$1@reader1.panix.com> <20111029175230.259@kylheku.com> <j8meed$p0j$1@reader1.panix.com> |
On 10/31/2011 11:21 AM, Joe keane wrote:
> In article <20111029175230.259@kylheku.com>,
> Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
>> Firstly, you're neglecting to take advantage of parameters being
>> local variables.
>
> I don't like that "feature" of C.
>
> It's harder to debug, it's harder to maintain.
>
>> Do you need fool and foob to retain the values they had on entry into
>> the function?
>
> It helps to retain sanity.
>
> e.g.
>
> int f2(int len, struct foo *fob)
> {
> ...
>
> for (j = 0; j < len; j++)
> {
> fob->a = fq(...);
> fob++;
> }
>
> ...
>
> for (j = 0; j < len; j++)
> {
> fob->b = fr(...);
> fob++;
> }
>
> ...
> }
>
> Oops!
I agree; that's a context where you need to keep the original value of
fob. To get compiler enforcement of the idea that it should not be done,
declare fob to as "struct foo * const fob".
However, I don't see anything wrong with
int f2(int len, struct foo *fob)
{
while(len--)
{
fob->a = fq(...);
fob++;
}
}
I don't see that as being any harder to debug, any harder to maintain,
and I don't see it as being necessary to retain my sanity (though some
would undoubtedly argue that it's too late for me to worry about that :-) ).
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-10-29 21:38 +0000
Re: the loop control Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:48 +1300
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-29 22:10 +0000
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-10-31 15:21 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 11:35 -0400
Re: the loop control jgharston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 10:27 -0700
Re: the loop control Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-10-31 18:36 +0000
Re: the loop control Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-31 13:49 -0500
Re: the loop control Sjouke Burry <s@b> - 2011-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 15:07 -0400
Re: the loop control Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-31 13:56 -0700
Re: the loop control Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-10-31 17:18 +0000
Re: the loop control Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 04:35 -0700
Re: the loop control Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-01 21:44 +0000
Re: the loop control Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 01:16 -0700
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-31 19:23 +0000
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-02 04:47 +0000
Re: the loop control Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 23:07 +0200
Re: the loop control Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-11-01 00:11 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 22:01 -0400
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-01 02:51 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 07:23 -0400
Re: the loop control Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-11-01 09:51 +0000
Re: the loop control pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-11-01 05:34 -0500
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 07:30 -0400
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 07:35 -0400
Re: the loop control Hans Vlems <hvlems@freenet.de> - 2011-11-11 00:38 -0800
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-02 03:36 +0000
Re: the loop control Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:09 +1300
Re: the loop control Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-02 03:56 -0700
Re: the loop control Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-31 21:38 +0000
Re: the loop control Acid Washed China Blue Jeans <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-29 19:31 -0700
Re: the loop control Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-10-29 23:11 -0600
Re: the loop control "Philip Lantz" <prl@canterey.us> - 2011-10-29 22:47 -0700
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-10-31 16:36 +0000
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-31 19:30 +0000
Re: the loop control blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-10-31 12:38 -0700
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 15:51 -0400
Re: the loop control blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-10-31 13:06 -0700
Re: the loop control Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-31 14:17 -0700
Re: the loop control Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-01 21:44 +0000
Re: the loop control Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 23:30 +0200
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-03 21:29 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-03 18:00 -0400
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-04 00:43 +0000
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-11 02:24 +0000
Re: the loop control Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 23:20 +0200
Re: the loop control pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-10-31 18:01 -0500
Re: the loop control Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-02 01:20 +0200
Re: the loop control 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-02 01:25 -0700
csiph-web