(the printf's are for debugging)Code:bool chomp(char *s) { for(int i = 0;s[i] != '\0'; i++) { if(s[i] == '\n') { s[i] == '\0'; printf("chomp returned true\n\n"); return true; } } printf("chomp returned false\n\n"); return false; }
the function returns true, yet still doesn't do it's job. I've looked through many times, and can't see what's wrong.
> s[i] == '\0';
Turn up your compiler warnings until this says 'useless comparison'
Then change the == to an =
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.
Oh! I didn't notice that... thx.
Assuming you are compiling in C++
Yeah, now you mention it, it is C++ code
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.
OK, I'll bite. What makes this C++?Originally posted by Salem
Yeah, now you mention it, it is C++ code
[edit]Oh! the bool.
Not if it was typdefed
[/edit]
Definition: Politics -- Latin, from
poly meaning many and
tics meaning blood sucking parasites
-- Tom Smothers
>What makes this C++?
The fact that we choose to ignore C99 until it is better implemented.
My best code is written with the delete key.
It's D code. But since this time nothing here was D-only, I posted it here.
Doesn't C have a bool with:
?Code:typedef int bool; #define false 0 #define true 1
>Doesn't C have a bool with:
Yes, but when you post code that assumes such a declaration, you should include it in your thread. That avoids confusion. However, the cry of C++ (or C99) was actually based on this line:
Because C89 doesn't allow a declaration in the initialization part of a for loop. Some compilers support this feature by extension because it's useful, but it wasn't actually standardized until C99. C++ also supports this feature.Code:for(int i = 0;s[i] != '\0'; i++)
My best code is written with the delete key.
I remember that, and that C++ can do that. Same how C++ can declare variable's 'on-the-fly', while in C you have to do so at the begining of the function (which I still do anyways).
I don't like that way it waste space. I useCode:typedef int bool; #define false 0 #define true 1
Thanx Prelude for that oneCode:typedef enum { BFALSE, BTRUE } bool_t;
No, your way wastes space if you actually think about it. There is only three (five if you count the newline) characters difference in the two methods.I don't like that way it waste space. I use
If you use your method, once each, you actually use more space than the previous. Here's how:
If you use "BFALSE" and "BTRUE" each once:
You actually use one more character than without using your enum. And seriously, if you're going to bother creating a new data type, you can be pretty sure they're going to use it more than once each.Code:bool_t something( void ) { if( rand() % 2 ) return BFALSE; else return BTRUE; }
As such, every time beyond one, you use 1 more character for each "BTRUE", one more for each "BFALSE", and two more for each "bool_t".
So if you want to be really picky, your way takes more space.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
>As such, every time beyond one, you use 1 more character for each "BTRUE", one more for each "BFALSE", and two more for each "bool_t".
However, some compilers will complain if you use "true" or "false" or "TRUE" or "FALSE" for the named constants because of conflict with other named constants. Likewise with a typedef of bool. The code given by linuxdude (which was originally written by me) makes a weak attempt to avoid clashes.
So if you want to be really really picky, your way uses fewer keystrokes, but my way is more robust.
My best code is written with the delete key.
