R. Brock Lynn wrote:
How do I effectively use getopt?
BUGS
This manpage is confusing.
Do as in the example written in the manpage. It explains the usage much
better than any words (if you ignore the _long parts).
If you rather read words, read the info page (getopt is documented in
holotko wrote:
But for testing null pointers, I use `!'. In this context, it seems
BAD. I worked in envinronments where NULL is ((void *)-1UL). If you use !
to check for a NULL pointer you make your code not portable.
What is the best, all round "most portable" means of testing for
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Pete Ryland wrote:
see http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/s5.html
for info on the NULL pointer.
Thanks a lot for the pointer, I found it very interesting.
An interesting page is also:
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q5.17.html
where there are listed many machines
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
But for testing null pointers, I use `!'. In this context, it seems
BAD. I worked in envinronments where NULL is ((void *)-1UL). If you use !
to check for a NULL pointer you make your code not portable.
What is the
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Pete Ryland wrote:
ok - this is often confused. the c faq has a *big* section on this...
NULL should be defined as 0.
Ok.
0 cast to a pointer type is defined as an undefined pointer and can be
implemented by the compiler as any number (including -1, or something
This
see http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/s5.html
for info on the NULL pointer.
summary of this:
5.1 there is a special value--the ``null pointer''--which is
distinguishable from all other pointer values and which is
``guaranteed to compare unequal to a pointer to any object or function.''
5.2 ``0''
On Mon, 25 May 1998, Pete Ryland wrote:
Don't be fooled! Just because it looks smaller in your c source, it
doesn't mean it'll be faster. It *should* generate the same code, so the
Heheheheh it' s faster to type ;-). This should be the only reason ! is
been implemented in C and I take
On Mon, 25 May 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
But for testing null pointers, I use `!'. In this context, it seems
BAD. I worked in envinronments where NULL is ((void *)-1UL). If you use !
to check for a NULL pointer you make your code not portable.
Andrea[s] Arcangeli
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
But for testing null pointers, I use `!'. In this context, it seems
BAD. I worked in envinronments where NULL is ((void *)-1UL).
That's _really bad_. ANSI C requires stdio.h to define NULL as being
equivalent to zero.
If you use ! to check for a NULL pointer you
Pete Ryland wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
Personally, I avoid using `!strcmp(...)'; I find `strcmp(...) == 0' to
be more intuitive.
__Personally__ I like the opposite ;-). I always use ! when I can. It' s
faster and nicer.
Don't be fooled! Just because
On Sun, 24 May 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
Personally, I avoid using `!strcmp(...)'; I find `strcmp(...) == 0' to
be more intuitive.
__Personally__ I like the opposite ;-). I always use ! when I can. It' s
faster and nicer.
Don't be
On Wed, 20 May 1998, R. Brock Lynn wrote:
It is supposed to generate random integers in a certain range specified by two
endpoints inclusive. i.e.: randomit 10 100 will send to stdout a random long int
between 10 and 100. should work for negative numbers too.
My code is included. Please
12 matches
Mail list logo
