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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #27848 > unrolled thread

kandr2 question

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 17:41 -0500
    Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 14:48 -0700
      Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 17:50 -0500
        Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 14:56 -0700
          Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-30 15:01 -0700
            Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:07 -0700
              Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:12 -0500
                Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:15 -0700
                  Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:25 -0500
                    Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:27 -0700
                      Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:59 -0500
                    Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:29 -0800
              Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-30 15:30 -0700
                Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:36 -0700
              Re: kandr2 question Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-10-31 14:15 -0400
          Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:04 -0500
            Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:07 -0700
              Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:09 -0500
                Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:13 -0700
                  Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:30 -0500
                    Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:50 -0700
                      Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 19:28 -0500
                        Re: kandr2 question Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@teksavvy.com> - 2012-10-30 19:39 -0400
                          Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 19:50 -0500
                            Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:45 -0800
                        Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:43 -0800
                    Re: kandr2 question Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-10-31 14:21 -0400
                    Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:43 -0800
                Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:40 -0800
            Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-30 15:31 -0700
              Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:36 -0700
            Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:37 -0800
          Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:07 -0500
            Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:10 -0700
              Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:47 -0500
                Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:52 -0700
          Re: kandr2 question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-30 22:08 +0000
            Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:11 -0700
              Re: kandr2 question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-30 18:36 -0400
                Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:44 -0500
                  Re: kandr2 question tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-10-30 15:53 -0700
                    Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 19:06 -0500
                    Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 19:12 -0500
              Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:49 -0800
          Re: kandr2 question Old Wolf <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> - 2012-11-11 14:37 -0800
        Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:27 -0800
    Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-30 15:00 -0700
      Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 18:18 -0500
    Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-30 16:13 -0700
      Re: kandr2 question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-30 23:31 +0000
        Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-30 17:45 -0700
        Re: kandr2 question Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 05:43 -0700
          Re: kandr2 question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-31 13:33 +0000
            Re: kandr2 question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-31 10:27 -0400
              Re: kandr2 question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-31 16:11 +0000
                Re: kandr2 question Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 14:53 -0800
          Re: kandr2 question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-31 10:38 -0400
      Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-30 19:39 -0500
        Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-30 17:51 -0700
          Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 13:47 -0500
            Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:55 -0800
          Re: kandr2 question Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-31 19:48 +0200
          Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 06:52 -0800
            Re: kandr2 question hormelfree@gmail.com - 2012-11-10 11:23 -0800
      Re: kandr2 question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-31 01:56 +0000
    Re: kandr2 question "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-30 18:44 -0700
    Re: kandr2 question Barry Schwarz <schwarz45@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-30 20:32 -0700
      Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 13:52 -0500
        Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-31 11:20 -0700
          Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 14:37 -0500
            Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 14:40 -0500
            Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-31 12:18 -0700
              Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 15:29 -0500
              Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 16:56 -0500
                Re: kandr2 question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-31 15:05 -0700
                  Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-11-01 13:11 -0500
        Re: kandr2 question Barry Schwarz <schwarz45@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-31 21:44 -0700
          Re: kandr2 question Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-11-01 09:34 +0000
            Re: kandr2 question Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-11-01 12:13 -0700
              Re: kandr2 question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-10 07:04 -0800
            Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-11-01 15:26 -0500
          Re: kandr2 question Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-11-01 17:56 +0200
          Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-11-01 13:14 -0500
    Re: kandr2 question SG <sgesemann@gmail.invalid> - 2012-10-31 20:14 +0100
      Re: kandr2 question "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 20:04 -0500

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#27848 — kandr2 question

    §1.9 page 29 has this function.

int getline (char s[], int lim)

Unless I'm missing something here to pass an array shoudn't that first 
parameter be char *s ?

Bill

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#27850

On Oct 30, 5:41 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>     §1.9 page 29 has this function.
>
> int getline (char s[], int lim)
>
> Unless I'm missing something here to pass an array shoudn't that first
> parameter be char *s ?
>
> Bill

Fuck off.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27851

tom st denis wrote:

> Fuck off.

    Go fuck yourself. That's what I have been told.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27852

On Oct 30, 5:50 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:
> > Fuck off.
>
>     Go fuck yourself. That's what I have been told.

If you don't know that char s[] is equivalent to char *s by now you
have to be trolling and are deserving of contempt.

And frankly I don't get you.  Trolling comp.lang.c?  Do you know how
specific that is?  Of the few 100,000 people on the planet who are
aware of C you have to be one of the trolls?  Seriously?  Get a hobby.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27854

tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> writes:
[...]
>                    ... char s[] is equivalent to char *s ...

As you know, the equivalence applies only for function parameters.

-- 
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]

#27858

On Oct 30, 6:01 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> tom st denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
> [...]
>
> >                    ... char s[] is equivalent to char *s ...
>
> As you know, the equivalence applies only for function parameters.

Yup, but I was replying in context to his original question so the
pedantic police need not apply.

Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27863

tom st denis wrote:

> Yup, but I was replying in context to his original question so the
> pedantic police need not apply.

    You Obviously didn't understand the original question in you infinite 
mind. Dick. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27865

On Oct 30, 6:12 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:
> > Yup, but I was replying in context to his original question so the
> > pedantic police need not apply.
>
>     You Obviously didn't understand the original question in you infinite
> mind. Dick.

You asked if a char s[] inside a parameter list should instead be char
*s.

The answer is no.  It doesn't have to be.

You only wrote one question in your original post.  Unless you have
some sort of vanishing NNTP ink that I don't know of I think saw and
answered your original question.

Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27867

tom st denis wrote:
> On Oct 30, 6:12 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>> tom st denis wrote:
>>> Yup, but I was replying in context to his original question so the
>>> pedantic police need not apply.
>>
>> You Obviously didn't understand the original question in you infinite
>> mind. Dick.
>
> You asked if a char s[] inside a parameter list should instead be char
> *s.
>
> The answer is no.  It doesn't have to be.
[snip]

I have never seen good function prototypes except these examples declare an 
array definition as char s[] in the prototype. Are you looking at a babie's 
code? They must be writing like this is kandr2 to simplify things. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27868

On Oct 30, 6:25 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 6:12 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> >> tom st denis wrote:
> >>> Yup, but I was replying in context to his original question so the
> >>> pedantic police need not apply.
>
> >> You Obviously didn't understand the original question in you infinite
> >> mind. Dick.
>
> > You asked if a char s[] inside a parameter list should instead be char
> > *s.
>
> > The answer is no.  It doesn't have to be.
>
> [snip]
>
> I have never seen good function prototypes except these examples declare an
> array definition as char s[] in the prototype. Are you looking at a babie's
> code? They must be writing like this is kandr2 to simplify things.

I've seen it before, like I said I too don't use it, but it's valid C
code [even in C11] so the answer [again] to your original question is
no, it doesn't HAVE to be "char *s" in the parameter list.

Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27884

tom st denis wrote:
> I've seen it before, like I said I too don't use it, but it's valid C
> code [even in C11] so the answer [again] to your original question is
> no, it doesn't HAVE to be "char *s" in the parameter list.

    My original question,

Unless I'm missing something here to pass an array shoudn't that first
parameter be char *s ?

Should've been,

Unless I'm missing something here to pass an array shoudn't that first
parameter be char *s [by convention]?

    And I was attacked for not understanding they were the same. What the 
fuck? Mind reading is off alittle today isn't it? So you could slip that 
troll word in there and look better. Well then *don't* feed the trolls.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28170

On Oct 30, 10:25 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 6:12 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> >> tom st denis wrote:
> >>> Yup, but I was replying in context to his original question so the
> >>> pedantic police need not apply.
>
> >> You Obviously didn't understand the original question in you infinite
> >> mind. Dick.
>
> > You asked if a char s[] inside a parameter list should instead be char
> > *s.
>
> > The answer is no.  It doesn't have to be.
>
> I have never seen good function prototypes except these examples declare an
> array definition as char s[] in the prototype. Are you looking at a babie's
> code? They must be writing like this is kandr2 to simplify things.

I'm no baby and I often use array syntax

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27870

tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> writes:
> On Oct 30, 6:01 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> tom st denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>> [...]
>>
>> >                    ... char s[] is equivalent to char *s ...
>>
>> As you know, the equivalence applies only for function parameters.
>
> Yup, but I was replying in context to his original question so the
> pedantic police need not apply.

Nevertheless, I was concerned that other readers might not pay
sufficient attention to the context.

-- 
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]

#27874

On Oct 30, 6:30 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> tom st denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>
> > On Oct 30, 6:01 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> >> tom st denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
> >> [...]
>
> >> >                    ... char s[] is equivalent to char *s ...
>
> >> As you know, the equivalence applies only for function parameters.
>
> > Yup, but I was replying in context to his original question so the
> > pedantic police need not apply.
>
> Nevertheless, I was concerned that other readers might not pay
> sufficient attention to the context.

Fair enough.

Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27916

On 10/30/2012 6:07 PM, tom st denis wrote:
> On Oct 30, 6:01 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> tom st denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>> [...]
>>
>>>                     ... char s[] is equivalent to char *s ...
>>
>> As you know, the equivalence applies only for function parameters.
>
> Yup, but I was replying in context to his original question so the
> pedantic police need not apply.

Since I'm not a member of the "pedantic police", I guess I am allowed to 
point out that you stripped out the context showing that it was a function 
parameter.  You simply said:

> If you don't know that char s[] is equivalent to char *s by now you
> have to be trolling and are deserving of contempt.


-- 
Kenneth Brody

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27855

tom st denis wrote:

> If you don't know that char s[] is equivalent to char *s by now you
> have to be trolling and are deserving of contempt.

    Of course I know that Dick. What's that got to do with anything? Read 
the standard.

> And frankly I don't get you.  Trolling comp.lang.c?  Do you know how
> specific that is?  Of the few 100,000 people on the planet who are
> aware of C you have to be one of the trolls?  Seriously?  Get a hobby.

    You're the one dropping a troll.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27856

On Oct 30, 6:04 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:
> > If you don't know that char s[] is equivalent to char *s by now you
> > have to be trolling and are deserving of contempt.
>
>     Of course I know that Dick. What's that got to do with anything? Read
> the standard.

And you wrote...

>int getline (char s[], int lim)
>
>Unless I'm missing something here to pass an array shoudn't that first
>parameter be char *s ?

And I wrote "they're equivalent."

So maybe yes it should be char *s out of convention but char s[] is
allowed there as for function parameters they're equivalent.

And since clearly you seem to know this [judging by your reply here]
why the fuck are you asking?

Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27860

tom st denis wrote:
> And since clearly you seem to know this [judging by your reply here]
> why the fuck are you asking?

None of your God Damn Business and *I* was right. But that's not my point. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27864

On Oct 30, 6:09 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:
> > And since clearly you seem to know this [judging by your reply here]
> > why the fuck are you asking?
>
> None of your God Damn Business and *I* was right. But that's not my point.

Right about what?  It doesn't have to be "char *s" it CAN be "char
s[]" and be perfectly valid code [when used as a parameter to a
function].

It's convention to use the star but that's not mandatory.  Just like
you could write

char a[4];

a[3] = 4;

Or

3[a] = 4;

They're equivalent C code.  Most people would use the former instead
of the latter even though they have the same effect.

Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27871

tom st denis wrote:

> It's convention to use the star but that's not mandatory.  Just like
> you could write
>
> char a[4];
>
> a[3] = 4;
>
> Or
>
> 3[a] = 4;
>
> They're equivalent C code.  Most people would use the former instead
> of the latter even though they have the same effect.
>
> Tom

In my original question I was asking about convention.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web