Thread: how to check if text file is blank

Hi,

I have written a program that counts number of words in a text file as shown below.

Code:

#include "stdafx.h"
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <ctype.h>

int main()
{
	char string[1000]; //to hold the text read out of file
	char *tokenPtr;//pointer is used to set aside a momory address to store the first token
	int count_word; 
	FILE *f;
	
	f = fopen("output.txt", "r");
	count_word = 0;

	fgets(string,1000,f);
	
		tokenPtr = strtok(string, " !@#$%^&*()_+=-{}[]|\"':;<,>.?/~`");// string, delimiters used to specify the boundary between regions

		while(tokenPtr != NULL) // stop at NULL
		{
			tokenPtr = strtok(NULL, " !@#$%^&*()_+=-{}[]|\"':;<,>.?/~`"); 
			count_word++;	
		}
	
		printf("\n# of words: %d\n", count_word);
	}
		
		fclose(f);
		return 0;
}

How to get program to correctly print out that # of words is 0 when the text file is empty? I was thinking of either checking of first character is EOF (by way of fgetc) or by checking if string[0] is a null, but I somehow can't get it working.... as of now, program always incorrectly tell me text file has 1 word when the text file is empty.

Thanks for all help in advance!!

Inside your while loop, you are incrementing count_word even though tokenPtr may be null.

Swap the call the strtok() with the incrementing of count_word inside your while loop. I'd actually probably write it this way:

Code:

for( tokenPtr = strtok( string, delimstring ); tokenPtr; tokenPtr = strtok( NULL, delimstring ) )
    ++count_word;

Originally Posted by x2x3i5x

Why would that help? What is the difference?

Why would swapping the two statements help, or why would writing it as a for-loop help?

If you mean the swapping, it's just logically correct, while the code you have now isn't.

As far as the for-loop, it's equivalent to the while, just a little more compact. Just preference.

Originally Posted by brewbuck

Why would swapping the two statements help, or why would writing it as a for-loop help?

If you mean the swapping, it's just logically correct, while the code you have now isn't.

As far as the for-loop, it's equivalent to the while, just a little more compact. Just preference.

Ok thank you.