Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #27276 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-10-17 17:16 -0400 |
| Last post | 2012-11-26 23:03 -0800 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 72 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-17 17:16 -0400
Re: callback function John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-10-17 21:36 +0000
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-17 17:44 -0400
Re: callback function John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-10-17 21:51 +0000
Re: callback function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-18 00:11 +0100
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-18 18:37 -0400
Re: callback function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-19 01:16 +0100
Re: callback function Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-20 06:48 -0700
Re: callback function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-18 10:45 +1300
Re: callback function pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-10-19 14:49 -0400
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-19 16:59 -0400
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-19 17:04 -0400
Re: callback function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-10-19 14:14 -0700
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-19 17:31 -0400
Re: callback function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-19 14:54 -0700
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-19 18:42 -0400
Re: callback function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-17 17:47 -0400
Re: callback function tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-19 04:44 -0700
Re: callback function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-19 08:24 -0400
Re: callback function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-10-17 14:39 -0700
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-17 17:50 -0400
Re: callback function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-18 11:00 +1300
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-18 18:20 -0400
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-18 18:24 -0400
Re: callback function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-10-18 22:30 -0700
Re: callback function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-20 11:58 +1300
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-19 19:27 -0400
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-19 19:43 -0400
Re: callback function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-10-19 21:09 -0700
Re: callback function Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-20 06:53 -0700
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-17 19:25 -0400
Re: callback function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-18 13:34 +1300
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-17 20:41 -0400
Re: callback function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-18 14:37 +1300
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-18 18:17 -0400
Re: callback function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-20 11:54 +1300
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-18 18:54 -0400
Re: callback function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-19 01:23 +0100
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-18 20:32 -0400
Re: callback function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-19 02:43 +0100
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-19 16:56 -0400
Re: callback function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-19 22:10 +0100
Re: callback function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-10-18 22:30 -0700
Re: callback function Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-10-19 12:37 -0400
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-19 16:52 -0400
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-19 18:44 -0400
Re: callback function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-10-19 21:09 -0700
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-20 15:01 -0400
Re: callback function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-20 12:47 -0700
Re: callback function Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-20 14:51 -0500
Re: callback function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-10-20 14:39 -0700
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-20 19:06 -0400
Re: callback function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-10-20 22:22 -0700
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-21 14:35 -0400
Re: callback function Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-10-22 10:58 -0400
Re: callback function Bill Cunningham <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-24 17:28 -0700
Re: callback function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-21 11:32 +1300
Re: callback function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-20 15:51 -0700
Re: callback function Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-11-25 22:39 -0600
Re: callback function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-17 17:51 -0700
Re: callback function Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-18 20:34 +0300
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-18 18:15 -0400
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-18 18:27 -0400
Re: callback function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-18 15:47 -0700
Re: callback function "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> - 2012-10-18 18:52 -0400
Re: callback function blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 10:01 +0000
Re: callback function Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-10-25 12:44 -0400
Re: callback function blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 12:48 +0000
Re: callback function Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-11-25 22:13 -0600
Re: callback function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-11-26 03:42 -0800
Re: callback function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-26 06:59 -0500
Re: callback function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-26 23:03 -0800
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 20:34 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <874nlr3cqt.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #27294 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> writes: > > I have these 3 functions and before I compile I am going to ask about > > them. > [...] > > You're posting code that you haven't even tried to compile? > > Please don't waste our time. Why didn't Bill hit everyone's killfiles half a decade ago? Your advice is heading straight down /dev/null every time you address his wibblings. Phil -- Regarding TSA regulations: How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle? Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive, whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 18:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k5pv1a$t1v$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #27294 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > You're posting code that you haven't even tried to compile? > > Please don't waste our time. Why do some people post untested code? I didn't know it was against the rules. I've seen it alot. It's tested now and works perfectly. Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 18:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k5pvoa$ulv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #27317 |
Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>> You're posting code that you haven't even tried to compile?
>>
>> Please don't waste our time.
>
> Why do some people post untested code? I didn't know it was against
> the rules. I've seen it alot. It's tested now and works perfectly.
Also untested code illustrated my point and answered my question
perfectly. I'm just in the *out* group.
Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 15:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmwzjieic.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #27317 |
"Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>> You're posting code that you haven't even tried to compile?
>>
>> Please don't waste our time.
>
> Why do some people post untested code? I didn't know it was against the
> rules. I've seen it alot. It's tested now and works perfectly.
Your code wasn't merely untested; you hadn't even compiled it.
It wasn't a violation of some specific rule, it was a violation of
common sense. You didn't bother to spend a minute or so compiling
your code before you posted it here. The code you posted was full
of syntax errors that anyone trying to help you would have to fix
before answering your actual question.
int comp(constvoid *a,const void *b)
Why should I spend time fixing errors like this, not relevant to the
question you're asking, that you could have fixed yourself? How is
anyone supposed to know which errors are just typos, and which are
relevant to the problem you're trying to solve?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 18:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k5q17j$1t5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #27324 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Your code wasn't merely untested; you hadn't even compiled it. > It wasn't a violation of some specific rule, it was a violation of > common sense. You didn't bother to spend a minute or so compiling > your code before you posted it here. The code you posted was full > of syntax errors that anyone trying to help you would have to fix > before answering your actual question. > > int comp(constvoid *a,const void *b) > > Why should I spend time fixing errors like this, not relevant to the > question you're asking, that you could have fixed yourself? How is > anyone supposed to know which errors are just typos, and which are > relevant to the problem you're trying to solve? I'll be more careful. Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-25 10:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aesgvlFk659U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #27317 |
In article <k5pv1a$t1v$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Cunningham <billcun@suddenlink.net> wrote: > Keith Thompson wrote: > > > You're posting code that you haven't even tried to compile? > > > > Please don't waste our time. > > Why do some people post untested code? I didn't know it was against the > rules. I've seen it alot. It's tested now and works perfectly. > Consider two scenarios: Person X posts untested code and asks for help with it. Person Y posts untested code in response to a question or request for help. Can you really not perceive a difference between these two situations, one that doesn't involve "in" and "out" groups? Aside, not just to you: I'm always amused by claims that code "works perfectly". "Works for all the tests I tried", okay, but -- oh well, I suppose I'm just a pessimist? It does seem like only relatively inexperienced programmers make such claims. -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-25 12:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <HtidnZHdJcz28RTNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@bestweb.net> |
| In reply to | #27671 |
On 10/25/2012 6:01 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: [...] > Aside, not just to you: I'm always amused by claims that code "works > perfectly". "Works for all the tests I tried", okay, but -- oh well, > I suppose I'm just a pessimist? It does seem like only relatively > inexperienced programmers make such claims. Well, I have no problem believing the "works for all tests I tried" claims. I just don't believe that their test suite was very extensive. "No, I never tried entering 'antidisestablishmentarianism'. Why do you ask?" "No, I never tried entering 12345678901234567890. Why do you ask?" "No, I never tried passing a negative number. Why do you ask?" -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-26 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aevf55FaofhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #27677 |
In article <HtidnZHdJcz28RTNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@bestweb.net>, Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> wrote: > On 10/25/2012 6:01 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: > [...] > > Aside, not just to you: I'm always amused by claims that code "works > > perfectly". "Works for all the tests I tried", okay, but -- oh well, > > I suppose I'm just a pessimist? It does seem like only relatively > > inexperienced programmers make such claims. > > Well, I have no problem believing the "works for all tests I tried" claims. Except the beginners don't seem to say it that way, do they? they say something works "perfectly" or "flawlessly". Cynic that I am, I'm inclined to agree with your comment: > I just don't believe that their test suite was very extensive. > > "No, I never tried entering 'antidisestablishmentarianism'. Why do you ask?" > > "No, I never tried entering 12345678901234567890. Why do you ask?" > > "No, I never tried passing a negative number. Why do you ask?" > Indeed. -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-25 22:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <50b2ec66$0$8622$862e30e2@ngroups.net> |
| In reply to | #27276 |
On 10/17/2012 4:16 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote: > I have these 3 functions and before I compile I am going to ask about > them. This is for qsort. I tried to tackle this once and couldn't get it I > think I get it now. I don't like const's. They are a nuisance. You can't > directly pass string literals to them you want to change. Maybe that's just > the way C is though. const is intended to be used for items with values known at compile time that do not need to be changed as the program runs. Looks like you aren't trying to use it that way, and are therefore having problems with anything you declare const.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 03:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <37d19535-e56b-4f3b-ac92-f4fff3e151c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28652 |
On Monday, November 26, 2012 4:13:27 AM UTC, Robert Miles wrote: > On 10/17/2012 4:16 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote: > > const is intended to be used for items with values known at compile > time that do not need to be changed as the program runs. Looks like > you aren't trying to use it that way, and are therefore having > problems with anything you declare const. > That's one use. A more common use is to document that a function doesn't change data. Eg char *stripspace(const char *str) indicates that the function is likely to return a pointer to a stripped string, rather than strip it in place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 06:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8vlit$eal$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28652 |
On 11/25/2012 11:13 PM, Robert Miles wrote: ... > const is intended to be used for items with values known at compile > time that do not need to be changed as the program runs. ... That would only allow it's use on objects with static storage duration. I would change "compile time" to "initialization", and "as the program runs" to "during their lifetime", so as to cover the use of objects with automatic storage, where 'const' can also be valuable. As Malcolm has already pointed out, "const T*" is also useful for pointers that you do not intend to use to change the pointed-at object. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 23:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnip8rjzmu.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #28652 |
Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> writes:
> On 10/17/2012 4:16 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>> I have these 3 functions and before I compile I am going to ask about
>> them. This is for qsort. I tried to tackle this once and couldn't get it I
>> think I get it now. I don't like const's. They are a nuisance. You can't
>> directly pass string literals to them you want to change. Maybe that's just
>> the way C is though.
>
> const is intended to be used for items with values known at compile
> time that do not need to be changed as the program runs. Looks like
> you aren't trying to use it that way, and are therefore having
> problems with anything you declare const.
const doesn't mean that something's value can be determined at
compile time. It merely means read-only.
This:
const int r = rand();
is perfectly valid (at block scope, anyway).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web