Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #15021 > unrolled thread
| Started by | superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-12-27 11:25 +0100 |
| Last post | 2011-12-28 19:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 2 on this page of 42 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
rms from rosettacode superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-27 11:25 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-27 06:48 -0500
Re: rms from rosettacode superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-27 13:01 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-27 07:10 -0500
Re: rms from rosettacode superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-27 13:36 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-27 10:04 -0500
Re: rms from rosettacode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-27 14:42 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-27 18:46 -0500
Re: rms from rosettacode 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-27 09:49 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-27 18:14 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-27 19:33 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-12-27 19:04 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-27 14:45 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-12-27 14:57 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-27 19:06 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode Bull in a China Blue Shop <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-27 16:16 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-27 14:11 -0500
Re: rms from rosettacode Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-27 20:13 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode Johann Klammer <klammerr@NOSPAM.aon.at> - 2011-12-28 00:23 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-27 15:54 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-27 22:53 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-28 06:29 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-28 02:45 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-27 19:53 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-27 20:13 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-27 21:31 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-12-27 20:49 -0500
Re: rms from rosettacode superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-28 11:42 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-29 08:18 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-28 11:54 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 04:12 +0200
Re: rms from rosettacode superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-29 14:38 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-28 02:26 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-12-28 21:35 -0500
Re: rms from rosettacode superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-29 14:10 +0100
Re: rms from rosettacode James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-28 08:03 -0500
Re: rms from rosettacode "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-28 13:32 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-12-28 13:41 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-28 19:29 +0000
Re: rms from rosettacode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-28 13:47 -0800
Re: rms from rosettacode Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 04:19 +0200
Re: rms from rosettacode Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-28 19:11 +0000
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 04:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87zkecxgpc.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #15112 |
"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> "James Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:jdf43c$aph$1@dont-email.me...
> > On 12/27/2011 08:49 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
>
> >> If in two and a half years you have not learned what happens when you
> >> "pass an array" to a function, you have scant aptitude for this
> >> particular discipline. Other and worthier disciplines exist; go and
> >> pursue one of those.
> >
> > I think you're both being a bit harsh on him. When I saw his comment
> > about being a newcomer, I had the same response - I remembered him being
> > a long-term participant. However, when I searched with Google groups, I
> > also found out he'd been posting here for only 30 months, and I decided
> > not to comment.
>
> I've been posting here a lot longer, but still have problems with some
> things that should be straightforward to a C programmer.
>
> For example, I had trouble the other night with creating a struct with
> self-referential members. I tried loads of combinations including
> forward declarations and got nowhere. I was about to post here, then
> came across this form in some code that was lying around:
>
> typedef struct snode{
> int value;
> int opcode;
> struct snode *aref,*bref;
> } node;
>
> That worked, but how can I turn the 'struct snode*' into a much tidier 'node
> *'? This doesn't work:
>
> typedef struct {
> int value;
> int opcode;
> node *aref,*bref;
> } node;
"Much" tidier? Removing one single token from your code makes it
"much" tidier? Get real. You might have an irrational dislike of
the struct keyword, but that doesn't mean others do. I'm sure there
are as many who like to avoid typedef as much as you want to avoid
struct. Your "tidy" would be their "opaque".
Phil
--
Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity
-- Dennis Ritchie (1941-2011), Unix Co-Creator
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20111228110227.414@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #15042 |
On 2011-12-27, superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote: > Kaz Kylheku ha scritto: >> On 2011-12-27, superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote: >>> what gives? >> >> What gives is that you're not yet competent enough in C to be working on >> Rosetta Code examples. Please find a different hobby. > > thanks for your constructive criticism. a beautiful way to lure > newcomers to the language! Sorry, I thought you might have been thinking of actually editing the Rosetta Code example to "improve" it. Knee-jerk reaction from having fixed bad C on that site. I meant "find a hobby other than editing Rosetta Code C examples", not "stop learning C programming", of course! Speaking of which, Rosetta Code C solutions are a mixed bag of nuts. Many are not well-written: poor handling of errors and corner cases, and written as if the standard library didn't exist (e.g. reimplementing functions like strchr from scratch). I recently fixed a bunch that neglected to null terminate strings (nor even allocate space for that). You could inadvertently pick up bad ideas by studying these examples.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web