James wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
-On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, James wrote:
-
-i like VI, it's quick, small and has no distracting menus (ok so you
-
-I use emacs from the console...
i've never used emacs
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
fixed a bug in an XEmacs package caused by using nreverse on a list
NO Glynn, XEmacs is a sacrilege ;-). Emacs without the X is the right
editor ;*)).
Andrea[s] Arcangeli
Isn't there an "emacs-nox", a no X version of
James wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
-Right. Could you please shoot the person who taught you this before
-they do any more damage :)
that would be a pleasure :) he's also the same person that taught me
declarative programming (euugh! so slow and nasty) and recursion
Kevin Sivits wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, CyberPeasant wrote:
James wrote:
listy = (line *) malloc (sizeof (line));
No need to cast the return of malloc.
Seems like casting the malloc return type is good style to me. It has
helped me catch errors to stupid mistakes like:
Hi Friend,
Yes, there is an emacs-nox, but from its name, I doubt that it will run
under X.
Best wishes,
Bill
holotko wrote:
fixed a bug in an XEmacs package caused by using nreverse on a list
NO Glynn, XEmacs is a sacrilege ;-). Emacs without the X is the right
editor ;*)).
Isn't there an "emacs-nox", a no X version of emacs which runs under X??
There are two issues that I think should be
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
-On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, James wrote:
-
-i like VI, it's quick, small and has no distracting menus (ok so you
-
-I use emacs from the console...
i've never used emacs (except X-Emacs), it has
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, James wrote:
i like VI, it's quick, small and has no distracting menus (ok so you
I use emacs from the console...
Andrea[s] Arcangeli
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
-Also, many problems which could be solved by either branched recursion
-or iteration (tail-end recursion) can be solved more efficiently by
-branched recursion; typically the recursive approach is O(log(n))
-whereas the iterative approach is O(n).
-
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 00:08:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:Glynn Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:Linux C Programming List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pointers (again)
Reply-to: Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL
- Mensagem original -
De: James [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 19 de junho de 1998 11:49
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assunto:Re: Pointers (again)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 00:08:53 +0200 (CEST)
From
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
- that would be a pleasure :) he's also the same person that taught me
- declarative programming
-
-That's *really* odd. Someone with a functional programming background
-would never add at the tail.
hmm, if i could be bothered moving i'd dig out the
James wrote:
- (euugh! so slow and nasty) and recursion (has a few uses... maybe)
-
-I think that I would have to disagree most strongly with both of those
-remarks.
why do i get the feeling this is one of those long running arguments, like the
'pc is better than the mac' 'Linux is
My book is "New C Primer Plus", by The Waite Group published by
Sam's International Standard Book Number 0-672-30319-1 and it covers all
aspects of C in a clear manner and my experiance has been that the Linux
compiler works exactly like the book clains unix should work.
On Wed, 17 Jun
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, CyberPeasant wrote:
James wrote:
listy = (line *) malloc (sizeof (line));
No need to cast the return of malloc.
Seems like casting the malloc return type is good style to me. It has
helped me catch errors to stupid mistakes like:
char *pointer;
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
-Right. Could you please shoot the person who taught you this before
-they do any more damage :)
that would be a pleasure :) he's also the same person that taught me
declarative programming (euugh! so slow and nasty) and recursion (has a few
uses...
James wrote:
-Right. Could you please shoot the person who taught you this before
-they do any more damage :)
that would be a pleasure :) he's also the same person that taught me
declarative programming
That's *really* odd. Someone with a functional programming background
would never add
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
fixed a bug in an XEmacs package caused by using nreverse on a list
NO Glynn, XEmacs is a sacrilege ;-). Emacs without the X is the right
editor ;*)).
Andrea[s] Arcangeli
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
(euugh! so slow and nasty) and recursion (has a few uses... maybe)
I think that I would have to disagree most strongly with both of those
remarks.
I disagree too!! Recursion is nice, the nicer and useful things for a
programmer. I love it,
Ok, i understand the need to make a pointer to the pointer so you can
make the pointer point to some other pointer (ok, so i intentionally
put lots of pointers in that line :) ) but here's what i'm trying to do:
Note: 'line' is defined as follows:
-- Part of parser.h --
typedef struct line_t
James wrote:
void next_1 (line **in)
{
/* this is where i am having difficulties, gcc gives this error:
passback.c:9: request for member `next' in something not a structure
or union */
*in = in-next;
Try
*in = (*in)-next;
`in' is a pointer to a
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
-
-James wrote:
-
- void next_1 (line **in)
- {
- /* this is where i am having difficulties, gcc gives this error:
-passback.c:9: request for member `next' in something not a structure
-or union */
- *in = in-next;
-
-Try
-
-
James wrote:
- listy = (line *) malloc (sizeof (line));
-
-No need to cast the return of malloc.
well it gets rid of an annoying warning.
There shouldn't be any warning without the cast. malloc() is defined
to return `void *', which can be implictly cast to any data pointer
without a
James wrote:
Ok, i understand the need to make a pointer to the pointer so you can
make the pointer point to some other pointer (ok, so i intentionally
put lots of pointers in that line :) ) but here's what i'm trying to do:
Be careful on using pointers in C , it can take you hours to
24 matches
Mail list logo
