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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #163754

Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF''

Show all headers | View raw

Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> writes:
<cut>

> Unlike most others, over the 50+ years I've been "doing this", I've written
> most of the software I use on a daily basis.

Either you limit what you do with software, or you have spent an
inordinate amount of time re-writing what others have done.  Just
thinking about what software I use every day makes my head hurt.

>>> If base64 won't work, there's no reason to suppose your 
>>> encoding will work. In fact, you know that your encoding does not work, 
>>> without extra effort, for the vast majority of newsreaders. I can view 
>>> base64 with a few key presses. 
>
> Yes, there is minimal extra effort, but I do know it will work and do
> what I wanted (might be related to the fact that I wrote it :-)! I
> don't know that stuff I've not used will do that, or won't change what
> it does over time!

Your definition of minimal effort is not the same as mine!  Also, what
works for you is one thing, but when making public posts, it's worth
considering what will work best for other people.

>>> There is a conventional way to link to many kinds of resource. Your
<There was more material here that got cut.  It alters my words.>
>>> Simple is a URL.
>
> Too many services I've tried to post "how to find me information" to,
> don't allow and actively remove email addresses and/or URL links!

What?  Posting links is an everyday occurrence on Usenet.  Has been for
decades.  And you could have posted the link *as well*.  One click for
me, hunt down decoder, compile and run for whoever can't see the link
for whatever weird reason.

>>>That's hardly modern (nearly three decades old) nor complex! 
>
> This was a bad "joke" - "modern practices" seems (to me) to be more invasive
> and aimed more at people who "don't know what they are doing"
> (attitude toward users in general, NOT this group).

So why not just post a link /along side/ the encoded code?

<cut>
> Most of my code compiles with my own compiler which is essentially K&R
> C with a few newer style extensions (like // comments, and in-arglist
> declarations).

It has all the major hallmarks of post K&R C -- void, function
prototypes, // comments and so on.  I can't see what bit of specifically
K&R C you are referring to.  I'd call it C90 without const but with C99
in-line comments.

<cut>
>> bcc required stdlib.h, string.h, but also it didn't like 'unsigned 
>> char*' types being passed to functions expecting 'char*'; the other 
>> compilers are more lax. 
>
> One of this few things I did't like about the original C spec. is the
> assumption that everything is signed unless you explicitly declare it
> as "unsigned".

There's two things here.  First, the original C spec did not assume that
everything was signed.  Specifically, char could be unsigned in K&R C.
Second, char, unsigned char and signed char are three different types.
A (modern) C compiler should report an error when passing an unsigned
char * to a function taking a char *, even if char is unsigned on that
implementation.

-- 
Ben.

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

Thread

K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-19 15:57 -0300
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 12:21 -0800
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-19 18:14 -0300
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 14:10 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-20 17:30 -0300
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-21 16:01 +0000
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-22 11:23 +0100
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 12:55 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-23 17:04 +0100
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 09:43 -0800
            Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-24 11:26 +0100
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-10 01:41 -0800
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-10 14:40 +0100
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2021-11-19 12:22 -0800
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-19 18:10 -0300
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-20 13:24 +0100
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-20 17:32 -0300
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 00:27 -0800
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 00:34 -0800
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 02:04 -0800
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 02:46 -0800
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 21:22 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 22:03 -0800
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-23 14:52 +0000
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 07:31 -0800
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-08 07:26 -0800
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-08 12:16 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-08 18:59 -0800
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-08 19:23 -0800
            Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 06:30 -0800
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-09 16:10 +0100
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-09 16:05 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-09 17:41 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 12:24 -0800
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-09 22:59 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-09 21:26 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-09 22:37 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-09 23:09 +0000
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-10 01:58 -0800
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 10:46 -0800
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-12 08:21 -0800
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2021-12-09 10:31 -0500
            Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 13:32 -0800
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 17:08 -0800
            Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 12:45 -0800
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-11 19:17 +0100
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-11 23:19 +0000
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-15 00:31 -0800
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 02:26 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-09 11:20 +0000
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 06:50 -0800
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-12-08 20:00 -0800
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-12 18:55 +0000
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-12 14:38 -0500

csiph-web