I know I can use pointers to get every character from a particular string such as
but I was wondering if there was another way to do thisCode:char * string = "hello";
char * i;
i = string;
for(;*i != '\0'; i++)
{
printf("%c",*i);
}
Printable View
I know I can use pointers to get every character from a particular string such as
but I was wondering if there was another way to do thisCode:char * string = "hello";
char * i;
i = string;
for(;*i != '\0'; i++)
{
printf("%c",*i);
}
What's wrong with the pointer way? As long as we don't know that, we can't know in what way it should be 'better', can we? Because it won't be better, it will just be more suitable in certain situations. For instance, you could use "string[3]" to get the 4th character...Quote:
Originally Posted by Albinoswordfish
And why do this:
when the obvious loop would be:Code:i = string;
for(;*i != '\0'; i++)
--Code:for(i = string;*i != '\0'; i++)
Mats
I was just wondering if there was a standard function I could use
Why would you want a function for that? Pointers are extremely fast, function calls waaaaaaaay slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albinoswordfish
well lets say your given a string that is not null terminated would it still be possible with pointer arithmetic
It would not be a string any more, but if you know the length of the char array, you can of course use pointer arithmetic safely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albinoswordfish
Why would it make it any less of a string? I am pretty sure it would still be a string, just not a 0-terminated string anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by laserlight
Why do you want to use *char = "string" ??
This way as you said, you are creating a read only string. So leave apart pointer arthimetic and changing '\0' character, you won't be able to change byte...
better use char[] = "string"
and then you don't need to worry about anything ...
That is subjective, and depends on the needs of the code. One is better sometimes (e.g. char [] is better when you need to modify the string), the other is better at other times. Although to be strict, it probably should be const char * = "string";Quote:
Originally Posted by vkaushal21
--
Mats
He's only preforming read-only options. Then it would be really bad practice to use char something[], imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by vkaushal21
He should really use "const char" in stead of char.
Because by definition, in C, "a string is a contiguous sequence of characters terminated by and including the first null character".Quote:
Originally Posted by EVOEx
Hmmm ok. Then I can somewhat agree to what you said ;). But you can still call it a string as well if you want. Wikipedia: "a string is an ordered sequence of symbols". And my lecturers taught me the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by laserlight
So, while it may not be a string according to the C standard (so not a C String), it is still a string according to many other definitions.
Of course, but if you do not use the standard definition, then you are running the risk of miscommunication. For example, the definition that you quoted allows us to call arrays of non-character integers strings, and indeed they are strings of integers. We could even zero terminate them and thus talk about "0-terminated strings".Quote:
Originally Posted by EVOEx
yes, I agree with you two... const char * is a better option...Quote:
Originally Posted by EVOEx