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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #98961

Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ??

From BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ??
Date 2016-12-12 01:02 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <o2kst0$h2v$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <871sxew6n8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o2ko86$jgi$1@dont-email.me> <o2kpc1$rbg$1@dont-email.me> <o2kq0g$34c$1@dont-email.me> <o2ksfc$fvo$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/12/2016 00:55, BartC wrote:
> On 12/12/2016 00:13, Lew Pitcher wrote:

>>>   18:55 $ Args '*'
>>>   argc == 2
>>>   argv[0] -> "Args"
>>>   argv[1] -> "*"
>>>
>>> Oops.... Passed * as argument, got * as argument.
>>
>
> I tried your program, and I got 125 arguments:
>
>  ...$ gcc c.c -oc
>  ...$ ./c

Oh-oh, I meant ./c *

>  argc == 125
>  ...

But hang on... I've just noticed you put quotes around the argument:

 >>>   18:55 $ Args '*'

So THAT'S why you didn't get a big list of files.

Sorry, but that's not allowed. My objection was that if someone 
accidentally types * instead of a number, it might, in some extreme 
circumstances, go wrong. (In that the program thinks the input is valid.)

What you seem to be saying is, it's OK because people just have to make 
sure they accidentally type '*' instead! That would be very considerate 
of them...


-- 
bartc

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

Thread

[command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 07:56 -0800
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:47 +0000
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 09:16 -0800
      Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 09:26 -0800
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 19:05 +0000
          Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 11:15 -0800
            Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 11:53 -0800
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 20:03 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 12:26 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 12:33 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 20:33 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 12:35 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 16:06 -0500
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:11 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:20 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:25 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 21:32 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:44 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:47 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 21:56 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 14:04 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:07 +0100
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 14:15 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:32 +0100
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 14:42 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 14:52 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 14:40 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 14:55 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 19:44 -0500
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:20 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 15:28 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 16:28 -0800
      Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 18:57 +0000
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-11 10:04 -0800
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 11:25 -0800
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 18:29 +0000
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 11:25 -0800
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 20:30 +0000
      Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 23:43 +0000
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-11 19:02 -0500
          Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-11 19:13 -0500
            Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 00:55 +0000
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 01:02 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-11 19:02 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 11:50 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:46 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 14:43 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 22:09 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 08:58 -0800
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-11 20:06 -0500
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 17:37 -0800
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-11 18:59 -0800
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 02:47 +0000
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 15:11 -0800
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:25 -0800
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:27 -0800
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-12 01:01 -0800
      Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 09:42 -0800
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 13:58 -0500
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-12 14:18 -0800

csiph-web