"int21h_d" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> can someone explain why the "thequickbrown..." doesnt
> concatenates after the "hello world", that is, "hello
> worldthequickbrownfox...." ???
You _need_ to include certain headers before you can
expect the code to work at all...
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
If you don't then the signatures for the functions
you use default to the wrong type.
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
Not an error, but you only need...
int main(void)
> {
>
> char buff[80];
> sprintf(buff, "hello world");
> printf("%s\n", buff);
More simply...
char buff[80] = "hello world";
puts(buff);
> buff[strlen(buff)]=strcat
> (buff,"thequickbrownfoxjumpsoverthelazydog");
What do you expect this to do? You are attempting to
assign a pointer to a character!
You probably didn't realise that because you didn't
include the relevant header, so strcat defaults to...
int strcat();
...instead of what it should be...
char *strcat(char *, const char *);
Had you included the header, the compiler is
obliged to issue a diagnostic for the constraint
violation of assigning a pointer to an integer.
Note that the 1999 C standard requires named
functions to be declared before use.
> printf("%s\n", buff);
> getch();
Non standard function that has a perfectly useable
standard alternative, namely getchar(). That said,
learn to run your programs from a DOS emulator,
rather than from IDE that closes the window when
the program finishes.
> return 0;
> }
It makes no sense to talk about why a broken program
didn't work. Undefined behaviour means _anything_
can happen.
Curiosity is a useful trait, but I'd rather spend two
hours writing useful code that works, than two hours
studying why a broken piece of code happens to behave
a certain way, on a specific machine, on a specific
compiler, at a specific time of day, and phase of the
moon... ;-)
--
Peter
