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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #25862

Re: code

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Thompson wrote:
> "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> writes:
>> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> There are four big things wrong here.
>>>
>>> (1) The termination condition of the loop is wrong.  It is always
>>> better, when using scanf and friends, to loop while the function
>>> reports success.  Don't loop while it isn't something you don't
>>> want, loop while it what you do want.  In this case, fscanf will
>>> report 1 if it reads one number so loop while the result is one.
>>
>>     Didn't know that. ok. Does it only return 0 or 1? Or the number
>> of bytes read like fread? That's what I'm trying to treat this like.
>
> You'll find the answer to that question in the documentation for
> fscanf.  Read it.
>
> [...]
>
>>     I have misused fscanf because I don't understand the *scanfs. I
>> thought it would return like fread. Bytes.
>
> Why would you think that?  Why would you write a call to fscanf
> without reading the documentation, which clearly tells you what it
> returns?
>
> As I've advised you multiple times before, you should *never* write
> a call to a C function without first reading and understanding the
> documentation for that function.
>
> [...]
RETURN VALUES
     These functions return the number of input items assigned.  This can be
     fewer than provided for, or even zero, in the event of a matching fail-
     ure.  Zero indicates that, although there was input available, no 
conver-
     sions were assigned; typically this is due to an invalid input 
character,
     such as an alphabetic character for a `%d' conversion.  The value EOF 
is
     returned if an input failure occurs before any conversion such as an 
end-
     of-file occurs.  If an error or end-of-file occurs after conversion has
     begun, the number of conversions which were successfully completed is
     returned.
I don't see anything in here about 0 of 1 but I do see that EOF is 
mentioned.Bill 

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-02 22:50 -0400
  Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-02 22:53 -0400
  Re: code Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-09-02 21:21 -0700
  Re: code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 22:23 -0700
    Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 06:56 -0400
  Re: code Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-09-03 07:47 +0000
  Re: code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-03 11:51 +0100
    Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 09:02 -0400
      Re: code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-03 15:02 +0100
        Re: code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-03 17:20 +0100
        Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 14:33 -0400
    Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 14:48 -0400
      Re: code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-03 13:11 -0700
        Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 17:41 -0400
          Re: code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-03 14:53 -0700
            Re: code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-03 23:10 +0100
          Re: code "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2012-09-03 16:56 -0500
            Re: code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-03 18:27 -0700
        Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 17:50 -0400
          Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 17:54 -0400
            Re: code Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-09-03 15:12 -0700
            Re: code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-03 23:23 +0100
              Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 18:42 -0400
                Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 19:11 -0400
                Re: code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-04 00:16 +0100
                Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 20:01 -0400
                Re: code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-04 02:07 +0100
                Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-03 21:17 -0400
                Re: code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-04 02:24 +0100
                Re: code Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-09-03 20:55 -0700
                Re: code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-04 11:16 +0100
              Re: code Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-09-04 14:09 -0400
          Re: code Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-09-04 14:07 -0400
            Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-04 18:35 -0400
              Re: code Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-04 18:49 -0500
                Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-04 20:56 -0400
                Re: code "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-09-04 22:05 -0400

csiph-web