Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: strtoll discussion |
| Date | 2015-04-03 15:23 -0400 |
| Organization | Self |
| Message-ID | <551EE8B7.4020106@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | <mfm0uu$i18$1@dont-email.me> |
On 04/03/2015 08:28 AM, jacobnavia wrote: > Hi > > I have written a document about the discusssion that we had in this > group. It would be nice to give to newcomers here, so that they can read > non-trivial code that is well documented. You wrote "I’m not really defending the way the strto*() functions are designed, but given what they do allowing any integer base 2-36 is really only a tiny bit of overdesign compared to allowing only a few bases in that range." I'm somewhat confused by the description of that as "overdesign", even though it's "only a tiny bit". It's true that the bases 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, and 32 are probably overwhelmingly the most commonly used, with 4 and 32 being used less often than the others. However, I don't see how any advantage could be derived from disallowing other bases. The reason depends upon upon what you're thinking of as a less-overdesigned alternative, but I reach the same conclusion either way. 1. Mandating that an error indication of some kind be returned if any other base is requested. This would complicate the code, and (very!) marginally slow it down - with no apparent benefit. 2. Allowing the behavior to be undefined if the any other base is used. There would be a point to doing this if there were any reasonable way to make the code faster or otherwise better in some way, by writing it in some way that fails for the other bases. The key problem: I can't imagine what that other way might be.. The simple, obvious code for handling base == 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, and 32 also incidentally correctly handles any base from 3 to 31; with negligible changes, that same code will handle any base up to 36. Very few people want to use any other base - but I'm sure there are some, and there's no good reason to force them to write their own code to do the same thing that is already done, at no extra cost, by the most obvious code for strtoll(). You also wrote: "Another problem with the base specification is that there is no standard function to output numbers with an arbitrary base!" I'm a little confused by that comment - there is such a function, and it's name is strtoll(), and you're implementing it.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-03 14:28 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-03 14:46 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-03 11:08 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-03 15:23 -0400
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-03 20:55 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-03 20:41 +0000
Re: strtoll discussion Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-03 13:52 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-03 22:25 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-04 00:17 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-03 16:27 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-04 02:07 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-04 03:44 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-04 12:13 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-03 16:11 -0400
Re: strtoll discussion Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-03 14:12 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-03 23:56 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-04 08:41 +1300
Re: strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-03 23:33 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion James Lothian <james@firstnamelastname.freeserve.co.uk> - 2015-04-03 20:51 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-03 13:09 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-03 13:16 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-03 21:19 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-03 13:28 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-03 22:29 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-03 23:33 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-03 23:34 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-03 22:42 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-03 15:08 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-04 00:13 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-03 23:44 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-04 00:48 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-04 00:03 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-04-03 19:31 -0400
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-04 00:37 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-04-04 10:29 -0400
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-04 15:54 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-04 08:07 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-04 16:28 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-04 08:57 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-04 17:03 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-04 09:44 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-04 18:05 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-04 23:32 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-05 11:00 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-05 13:18 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-05 17:37 -0400
Re: strtoll discussion Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-05 15:00 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-05 22:17 -0500
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-04 18:54 -0400
Re: strtoll discussion Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-05 12:14 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-04 00:19 +0000
Re: strtoll discussion Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-03 17:48 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-08 11:23 -0400
Re: strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-08 19:35 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-08 10:47 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-08 14:22 -0400
lltostr/ulltostr jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-04 13:56 +0200
Re: lltostr/ulltostr Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-04 13:36 +0100
Re: lltostr/ulltostr Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-04-04 18:54 -0700
Re: lltostr/ulltostr Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-05 14:29 +1200
Re: lltostr/ulltostr Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2015-04-05 16:58 +0000
Re: lltostr/ulltostr jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-05 20:39 +0200
Re: lltostr/ulltostr glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-05 20:19 +0000
Re: lltostr/ulltostr Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-05 13:18 -0700
Re: lltostr/ulltostr Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2015-04-06 14:28 +0000
Re: lltostr/ulltostr Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-06 08:40 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-04 13:04 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-04 22:52 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-04 22:14 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-05 00:24 +0100
Re: strtoll discussion Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-04 16:51 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-04-05 23:32 +0200
Re: strtoll discussion Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-16 09:21 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-17 02:21 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-04 15:36 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-16 09:19 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-16 10:43 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-17 07:59 -0700
Re: strtoll discussion Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-04-07 11:46 +0200
csiph-web