Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: code |
| Date | 2012-09-03 13:11 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <ln4nnex3ww.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | <k215tf$b93$1@speranza.aioe.org> <0.c99f3778f5dea1cf9e21.20120903115142BST.87obln4bwh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <k22u1n$km6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
"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.
[...]
--
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"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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