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


Groups > comp.lang.c > #59392

Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll

From Bartc <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll
Date 2015-04-01 12:43 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <mfglji$p0n$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <afgkhad77likbtrl59abp4gicrighrb2e9@4ax.com> <mfe28k$ks4$1@dont-email.me> <877ftxjjfr.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <co0i5dFq6k4U1@mid.individual.net> <jvdnhatbsgc9n3kui2s10q2a9arfk5hpgk@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw


On 01/04/2015 10:33, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:33:33 +1300, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On 31/03/2015 07:44, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> The base may be any (integer) value 2..36.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like ridiculous over-specification to me, because if you're
>>>> going to allow base 36, why not 136? Bases in the range 2 to 16 are
>>>> very common and useful; above 16 aren't.
>>>
>>> Base 7 is common and useful?
>>>
>>> Bases up to 36 are permitted because the digits can be represented
>>> straightforwardly using decimal digits and letters.  Restricting the
>>> base to, say, 2, 8, 10, or 16 (or 0) would have been arbitrary;
>>> permitting any base from 2 to 36 would not make the implementation
>>> significantly easier.  (And base 36 might be an almost reasonable
>>> way to represent numbers compactly, though it's not particularly
>>> human-readable.)
>>
>> I have encountered one real example of using higher bases to represent
>> numbers compactly which was a message number in a test based comms protocol.
>
>
> I've seen a few cases of encoding a serial/id number to shorten it.
> Dell's service tag, on each of their PCs, for example, is a base-36
> number (approximately - I don't know if they've eliminated any digit
> pairs like 0/O).  IBM invoice numbers were a base-36 (again,
> approximately) number for decades, although they appear to have
> changed that in the last decade or so.
>

OK, I'll go along with that then.

For a bit of fun here's a string-to-int function that can work with 
bases beyond 36, and will work for any length of input so overflow is 
not an issue. The example given is in base-60 with "O" and "o" excluded. 
(http://pastebin.com/b6nE6Ygb *Not in C* otherwise it would have taken a 
week instead of a few minutes.)

My point is that these uses are specialised and don't really belong in 
the language. Not when C hardly has base-2 input and output yet!

-- 
Bartc

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


Thread

code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-29 17:33 +0200
  code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-29 09:22 -0700
    Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-03-29 15:12 -0700
      Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-29 23:07 -0700
  Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-03-29 09:44 -0700
    Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-29 19:05 +0200
      Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-29 12:15 -0700
  Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-30 02:01 +0100
    Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-29 19:48 -0700
      Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-03-29 22:08 -0700
        Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-30 12:44 +0100
          Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-03-30 09:04 -0700
            Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-30 21:00 +0100
        Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-30 08:24 -0700
      Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-30 07:21 -0700
  Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 18:02 +1300
    Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-30 08:03 +0100
      Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 20:33 +1300
        Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-30 20:35 +1300
  Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-30 07:27 -0700
  Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-30 09:08 -0700
  Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-30 09:29 -0700
  Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-30 15:16 -0500
    Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-31 00:15 +0200
      Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-31 01:42 -0500
    Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-30 23:39 +0100
      Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-31 01:44 -0500
        Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-31 13:01 +0100
          Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-31 05:13 -0700
          Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-31 08:06 -0700
            Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-31 08:26 -0700
            Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-31 16:40 +0100
              Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-31 09:39 -0700
              Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-31 18:22 +0000
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-31 19:36 +0100
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-31 12:11 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-31 19:23 +0000
            Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-31 16:52 +0100
              Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-31 17:54 +0000
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-31 18:51 +0000
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-31 20:05 +0100
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-31 15:18 -0400
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-31 20:49 +0100
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-31 13:06 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-06 13:03 +0000
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-06 14:27 +0100
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-06 17:01 +0100
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-06 11:25 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-06 23:34 -0400
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-07 03:46 +0000
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-08 11:05 -0400
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 08:31 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-31 19:54 +0000
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-31 16:55 -0400
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-31 22:20 +0100
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-31 14:36 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-31 14:55 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-31 17:00 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-01 01:24 +0100
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-31 23:33 -0400
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-01 04:42 +0100
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-31 20:26 +0100
            Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-01 10:33 +1300
              Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-01 04:33 -0500
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-01 12:43 +0100
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-02 01:02 -0500
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-01 23:57 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-03 00:29 -0500
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-02 09:01 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-02 14:30 -0700
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-03 00:39 -0500
                Re: code for 32/64 bit strtoul strtol strtoull strtoll glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-01 15:55 +0000

csiph-web