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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #99034

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 11:50 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <o2m2rv$dkk$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (4 earlier) <o2kpc1$rbg$1@dont-email.me> <o2kq0g$34c$1@dont-email.me> <o2ksfc$fvo$1@dont-email.me> <o2kst0$h2v$1@dont-email.me> <lnh969svc5.fsf@kst-u.example.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/12/2016 03:02, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> 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.
>
> I should have read this before posting my previous followup.
>
>> Sorry, but that's not allowed.
>
> Sorry, but that's just too bad.
>
>>                                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.)
>
> Yup.  That's the way it is.
>
>> 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...
>
> I'm not sure what point you're making,

The point is clear enough, surely?

If everyone reads the specification and types in exactly what is 
expected, then a verification program discussed in the OP is unnecessary.

But if there is the possibility that bad inputs can be given, then it 
will be possible that someone could, either inadvertently, accidentally 
or maliciously, type * - without quotes or an escape - and fool the 
program that it has to be given valid input.

Under those circumstances, you can't 'get around' the problem. Lew 
should just have said:

 > Yup.  That's the way it is.

-- 
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