> but could we plz consentrate on the looping as i described before that is what I really need. thanx
We!?! It's your work, at least attempt it -- don't make demands, this isn't group work.
> but could we plz consentrate on the looping as i described before that is what I really need. thanx
We!?! It's your work, at least attempt it -- don't make demands, this isn't group work.
have you read this: http://faq.cprogramming.com/cgi-bin/...&id=1043284385 ?
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
. . . and this? http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/c/lesson3.html
dwk
Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.
"Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
"Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell
Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net
My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.
Appreciate the effort, but wouldn't an expression with a relational or logical operator be a larger expression instead of what you said? "that && the_other_thing" would be as much a conditional test as a variable by itself (though that's not very expressive, the fact remains). The sides of a relational operator are usually called operands, too. So, yeah ....Originally Posted by Elysia
Last edited by whiteflags; 03-30-2008 at 10:35 AM.
Heh, well, we aren't perfect. Take it with a bit of criticism. It's not 100% correct.
Just do your homework next time, I guess.
Words and expressions can't always be remembered
It was a nice explanation in that it was accurate at least to a degree (although while the groups were marked with inproper words)
If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candies and nuts, we'd all be having a Merry Christmas.
