here
Anything that stands out obviously - spelling, technical errors, whatever. Of course, that is assuming that whoever reads it is really bored. ;)
~/
Printable View
here
Anything that stands out obviously - spelling, technical errors, whatever. Of course, that is assuming that whoever reads it is really bored. ;)
~/
I liked your fundamental explanation of what an enumeration really is ("To enumerate is to count off or list items one by one"), and overall it is a strong article.
There was one thing I noticed, but when I went back and re-read I found you had taken care of it (it had to do with being able to use typedef in C with enums).
I didn't find any spelling mistakes, and I did read the whole thing. I don't think there were any errors with code, but I didn't go through every code snippet.
If I had to rank the article I'd give it a 9.5/10, unless some problems surface later that I missed.
Else keep up the good work.
Very good job, thank you for finally clearing up the last lingering questions I had about enumeration :)
I didn't notice any grammar mistakes or anything of the sort, and it was very neatly organized and coded.
If you were looking for suggestions for improvement, I'm sorry, but you just won't find any here :)
I can invent a grammar so that I find mistakes. :D (Sorry, working on linguistics problem set and losing mind.)
Seriously though, it is rather well written. Nice job. :)
why does it scoll ackwardly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxdude
it does?
>uberkermit
:D
>To enumerate is to count off or list items one by one.
This is just clutter as it can be very ambiguous to a reader. If you know that an enumerated type is a complete list of values for that type then the sentence can be figured out. Otherwise it's better to stay away from the etymology of the word and go straight to the formal definition. ;)
>There are different ways of declaring an enumerated type.
No more different than how you would declare an integer type, or a structure type. Declarations in C are very uniform if you know what to look for. You should explain that there is a full form and then show how optional parts can be omitted. That's actually what you do, but you do it in a way that can cause confusion.
>enum bool{ FALSE, TRUE };
Your use of bool could potentially cause problems in a C99 implementation, I would suggest changing it to boolean if you can a Java rip-off. ;)
>enum bool{ FALSE, TRUE };
>typedef enum bool bool;
Beware using this trick without explaining C's name space rules, and it couldn't hurt to mention the short form as well:
And another important point to mention is the enumeration constants are integral. You didn't state that anywhere in the article.Code:typedef enum { FALSE, TRUE } bool;
Ok, cool - Thanks Prelude - I will look into making some changes this weekend hopefully.
It's ub3r, not uber
I think they got the other things.
>It's ub3r, not uber
It depends on your level of mental regression. At the earliest stages of de-evolution, one would use über, followed closely by uber, and finally ub3r, at which point there is no hope of recovery and even more meaningless variations are sure to arise. It's at these stages that unnecessary bolding and font sizing are used, sometimes along with flashy colors and excessive exclamation marks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prelude
U cannot be serious!!!111one
On a serious asside to the obvious sarcasm of my post, think ub3r is more appropriate in this context. Simply for the matter that it's online use and general context is that of egoism expressed in online mediums. Especially when most commonly expressed with things like leetness and super haxoring the interwebnet, the 3 is far more in character then the E.
It's not to say that either use is completly lame, comming about 7 years after the dot com crash of the 90's which was pretty much the cut off point for cool jargon of such.
IMHO of course.