Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: scanf design |
| Date | 2016-12-11 22:05 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87vauqt93g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <o2kh5p$e5q$1@dont-email.me> |
"Bill Cuningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> writes: > I have notice over time, and the last few days I have been thinking > about this in particular. scanf's design. It wants the value of the address > a pointer points to. The value of the address a pointer points to is just a long-winded way of saying the value of the pointer. > Hum now I notice many functions want a pointer's address. No, that's quite rare. The most common situation is just a pointer, i.e. an address. > But not so many an address pointed at. That's a bit vague. > What exactly do the designer's have in mind here when it comes to scanf > and dealing with pointers. They expect you to pass a pointer to an object of the right type. It's much simpler is you always just use the word "pointer" and don't tie yourself in knots using two very similar meaning words. -- Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
scanf design "Bill Cuningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-12-11 16:42 -0500
Re: scanf design Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-11 22:55 +0100
Re: scanf design "Bill Cuningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-12-11 17:03 -0500
Re: scanf design Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 22:05 +0000
Re: scanf design Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-11 14:43 -0800
Re: scanf design "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-12-12 12:25 -0500
Re: scanf design Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:15 -0800
Re: scanf design Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 13:17 -0800
Re: scanf design Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 14:02 -0800
Re: scanf design Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 15:06 -0800
Re: scanf design fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 15:58 -0800
Re: scanf design fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 16:10 -0800
Re: scanf design fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 16:10 -0800
Re: scanf design fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 16:22 -0800
Re: scanf design fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 07:30 -0800
Re: scanf design fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 07:56 -0800
Re: scanf design fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 08:21 -0800
Re: scanf design "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-12-12 13:18 -0500
Re: scanf design Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:37 -0800
csiph-web