changing the value pointed to by a pointer
Can someone tell me why, this won't work. No messages when compiled.Code:#include <stdio.h> void alphabet(char *); int main(void) { alphabet("a"); system("PAUSE"); return 0; } void alphabet(char *p) { if(*p <= 'z') { putchar(*p); (*p)++; alphabet(p); } }
I this, its because you can't change a string from the program's string table if that makes any sense.
Im not sure, but if you change your main function to look like this, it'll work:
I think it may have something to do with the fact that you are sending a literal value, instead of the address of a variable and then trying to change it. That is a very big guess though and I imagine I'm wrong.Code:char ch = 'a'; alphabet(&ch);
it's ironic considerate rarity patron of love higher knowledge engulfs me...
Close. The OP is right. You cannot modify string literals. Or rather, you shouldn't try. Consider:Here, even though we use a variable, and pass that, it still is referring to a string literal. You have to use an array, or dynamically allocate memory, fill it, and pass that...Code:char *s = "point to s at a string literal"; ... alphabet( s ); /* will have the same problem... */Or...Code:char *s = malloc( strlen( "allocate some space" ) + 1 ); strcpy( s, "allocate some space" ); ... alphabet( s ); /* works, because 's' doesn't point at a string literal */Quzah.Code:char s[] = "an array of stuff"; ... alphabet( s );
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Cool, I finally feel like I've actually learnt things over the last few months.
it's ironic considerate rarity patron of love higher knowledge engulfs me...
> Can someone tell me why, this won't work
How can you say that when you never said what it is you expect to happen.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
>How can you say that when you never said what it is you expect to happen.
Am I allowed to point out that the code is pretty simple and a person of your ilk should be able to deduce what it is trying to achieve?
No? Ok. ¬.¬
Though, I can see where you're coming from.
it's ironic considerate rarity patron of love higher knowledge engulfs me...
Fixing it for semantic correctness is not a problem, any half-trained chimp could manage that.
But very minor changes to the sense of the ++ line of code will radically alter the functionality.
I've been down the "yeah thanks, but I wanted bar to happen, not foo", having previously seen no hint of either.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
Yes, fair enough, I see your point.
it's ironic considerate rarity patron of love higher knowledge engulfs me...
