Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison |
| Date | 2012-05-12 08:41 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <a15br0F58bU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <jojghh$91l$1@speranza.aioe.org> <0.81abe602485ae4e38c44.20120511203101BST.87boluwm4q.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jojrg3$66s$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
On 05/12/12 08:06 AM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 11/05/12 21:31, Ben Bacarisse a écrit : >> I am not sure what you are really asking. > > Just trying to discuss the two approaches. I am sure > C++ has more "syntactic sugar" than C, but the > two approaches lead to similar code. Not really. As Ben demonstrated, the "syntactic sugar" leads to much more concise and less error prone code. In this case, 2 lines rather than 18! > I was just asking from feedback about that, maybe improvements > proposals. What you have is probably the best that can be done within the confines of C. -- Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-11 18:59 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-05-11 17:54 +0000
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-11 19:59 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-05-11 20:31 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-11 21:56 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-05-11 21:02 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-11 22:12 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-05-11 21:18 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-11 22:01 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-05-11 21:08 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-11 22:04 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-05-11 21:11 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-11 22:15 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison cartec69@gmail.com - 2012-05-11 13:17 -0700
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-11 22:06 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-12 08:41 +1200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-05-12 07:18 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-12 09:48 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-12 20:09 +1200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-12 10:30 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-12 21:23 +1200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-12 11:39 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-12 23:02 +1200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-05-12 13:14 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-12 14:35 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-05-13 10:59 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-05-11 23:36 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-05-12 00:25 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-05-12 01:58 +0100
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-11 19:30 -0700
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-05-12 09:49 +0200
Re: CCL vs STL: a comparison Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-05-12 18:31 +0200
csiph-web