"John Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your attitude is among the most unwarranted rude, and condescending I have
ever experienced.
Your behavior is at such an inappropriate level that you really should seek
to address it if only for your own benefit.
It is a HUGE business liability (*nobody* wants to come to people who act
like you routinely do and ask them a question, let alone for help) and an
even bigger personal one (when people scream "I AM A JERK: DON'T COME NEAR
ME!" they tend to be left alone). Almost every time I read a response from
you I think to myself, "I cannot imagine what it must be like to work with
that guy on a regular basis". We all know you are sharp and have most of
the answers. Many of us are greatly indebted to your work with PRC tools.
Most of us would like to like you but you make it *SOOOOOOO* hard! The
bottom line is that this *is* a bug in the compiler and yet I come away
feeling like *I* did something wrong because I never heard about it before!
To top it off, you were a hypocrite just now (or perhaps merely ironicly
incorrect). You state first this:
> Your original code said "static const char threeChars[] = {"123"};",
> which is an entirely different kind of thing.
> The original one triggers the compiler bug Dave Lasker mentioned.
> The other is entirely different and does not. A "GoodCoder" knows
> the difference between these two instinctively; perhaps you want to
> read the C FAQ or a book.
You said, the 2 different definitions are "entirely different" and a "good
coder knows" this "instinctivley".
But then you say:
> That initialisation is unorthodox
> but not invalid. Here's what the C standard section on Initialization
> has to say about this (C90 6.5.7; C99 6.7.8/11):
>
> An array of character type may be initialized by a character
> string literal, optionally enclosed in braces. [...]
In other words, the 2 are exactly the same (except for a bug in the compiler
which doesn't treat them as it should).
Any good code owner or support team member would not be so contradictory,
ESPECIALLY with such a perfectionist standard being applied to everyone
else.
> > My original definition is definitely bad. It is defined as a 1
> > dimensional array but is assigned a 2 dimensional array which has only 1
> > element.
> No, it's a single dimensional array.
No, it is a 2 dimensional array with a single element. As such, when put
into memory, it (should) appear no different from a 1 dimensional array
which is why C allows it. I still say it should be a compiler warning
(Wall) as it is so unorthodox.
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
