MCENANEY WILLIAM J wrote:
>
> Hi Friends,
>
> I'm back. What's that I hear, a groan? Grin. Since "nice" is a vague word,
> I don't know what is nice about "!strcmp()." But if we're talking about
> readability and aesthetic appeal, I would love to change C. Call me a nit-
> picker. But if I wanted to find out whether two strings were identical, I'd
> want to use an equal sign in my "if" statement.
>
> Say I need to keep using strcmp(). Then I might define constants to stand
> for values that strcmp() returns. I could write:
>
> if (strcmp(s1, s2) == SAME)
> puts ("They're the same.");
> else
> puts ("They differ.");
>
> I'm no expert in C, but I'm a perfectionist about readability. Though my
> idea me not please an expert C programmer, it tells my readers what I mean.
> What do you think?
>
> Best wishes,
> Bill
HA, if C lent itself to readability then the * for pointer stuff would not be
used like it is.
I'd like to see a C like this:
ptr int this-is-a-pointer-to-an-int ;
ptr char char-pointer ;
It is kind of backwards trying to define a pointer variable name in terms of
what it points to:
int *this-is-a-pointer-to-an-int ;
This is saying that the variable, whose type *really* isn't explicitly stated,
"this-is-a-pointer-to-an-int" when dereferenced gives you an int, so thus by
inference, this-is-a-pointer-to-an-int *must* be a pointer to an int. Now that
is BACKWARDS IMHO!
And NO, C++, and Java are *not* the answer!
We just need to come up with a C-2, "C the next generation" language.
That's my 2c,
Brock
--
/---------------------------/--------------------------------------------------\
| R. Brock Lynn / http://www.linux.org/ http://www.rbl.dyn.ml.org/ |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Linux: The Choice of a GNU Generation! |
\---------------------/--------------------------------------------------------/
