«

Neil wrote:

> On Feb 15, 9:28 pm, Barry Schwarz <schwa...@doezl.net> wrote:
> Post a compilable example of the code that exhibits the behavior.
>
> Barry, I would if I knew where the problem is in the program..
> Obviouly the pointers are not causing the problem.

We need a complete, minimal program that demonstrates the problem.
There three conditions there.

1. Complete - A program that can be cut and pasted in our compilers if
we choose, but at the very least we know is not missing something.

2. Minimal - The program reduced down as much as possible. That means
removing parts where you can to simplify it, but still produces the
failing behavior. Often the process will reveal the section with the
bug, but at least you will make the review process easier.

3. Demonstrates the problem - The code you give us should be able to
produce the exact condition you are experiencing. In addition, you need
to tell us what the program was supposed to do, and what it did
instead. If it is failing to compile, transcribe exactly or
(preferably) cut and paste the compiler messages.




Brian

Default User wrote:
> Neil wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:28 pm, Barry Schwarz <schwa...@doezl.net> wrote:
> > Post a compilable example of the code that exhibits the behavior.
> >
> > Barry, I would if I knew where the problem is in the program..
> > Obviouly the pointers are not causing the problem.
>
> We need a complete, minimal program that demonstrates the problem.
> There three conditions there.
>
> 1. Complete - A program that can be cut and pasted in our compilers if
> we choose, but at the very least we know is not missing something.
>
> 2. Minimal - The program reduced down as much as possible. That means
> removing parts where you can to simplify it, but still produces the
> failing behavior. Often the process will reveal the section with the
> bug, but at least you will make the review process easier.
>
> 3. Demonstrates the problem - The code you give us should be able to
> produce the exact condition you are experiencing. In addition, you need
> to tell us what the program was supposed to do, and what it did
> instead. If it is failing to compile, transcribe exactly or
> (preferably) cut and paste the compiler messages.

Might be a good idea to save this reply for quickly responding to
similar situations in the future.

On Feb 16, 1:10 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

Since you don't know where the problem was, it makes sense to post the
whole program.

> Richard Heathfield
> "Usenet is a strange place"


True...But I fixed the problem late night, knowing what you everyone
told me about pointers, It works just fine now.

Reason, why I didn't post the whole program was I didn't have copy of
it with me at work, I was sure that I could find a solution for it
soon, as I did.

Richard thanks for your help, Have a good weekend!!

-Neil

On Feb 16, 11:57 am, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Neil wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 9:28 pm, Barry Schwarz <schwa...@doezl.net> wrote:
> > Post a compilable example of the code that exhibits the behavior.
>
> > Barry, I would if I knew where the problem is in the program..
> > Obviouly the pointers are not causing the problem.
>
> We need a complete, minimal program that demonstrates the problem.
> There three conditions there.
>
> 1. Complete - A program that can be cut and pasted in our compilers if
> we choose, but at the very least we know is not missing something.
>
> 2. Minimal - The program reduced down as much as possible. That means
> removing parts where you can to simplify it, but still produces the
> failing behavior. Often the process will reveal the section with the
> bug, but at least you will make the review process easier.
>
> 3. Demonstrates the problem - The code you give us should be able to
> produce the exact condition you are experiencing. In addition, you need
> to tell us what the program was supposed to do, and what it did
> instead. If it is failing to compile, transcribe exactly or
> (preferably) cut and paste the compiler messages.
>
> Brian


Brain Yeh right, I make a note of that next time, fortunatly I solved
the problem late last night. OK.

On Feb 16, 12:32 pm, "santosh" <santosh....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Default User wrote:
> > Neil wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 9:28 pm, Barry Schwarz <schwa...@doezl.net> wrote:
> > > Post a compilable example of the code that exhibits the behavior.
>
> > > Barry, I would if I knew where the problem is in the program..
> > > Obviouly the pointers are not causing the problem.
>
> > We need a complete, minimal program that demonstrates the problem.
> > There three conditions there.
>
> > 1. Complete - A program that can be cut and pasted in our compilers if
> > we choose, but at the very least we know is not missing something.
>
> > 2. Minimal - The program reduced down as much as possible. That means
> > removing parts where you can to simplify it, but still produces the
> > failing behavior. Often the process will reveal the section with the
> > bug, but at least you will make the review process easier.
>
> > 3. Demonstrates the problem - The code you give us should be able to
> > produce the exact condition you are experiencing. In addition, you need
> > to tell us what the program was supposed to do, and what it did
> > instead. If it is failing to compile, transcribe exactly or
> > (preferably) cut and paste the compiler messages.
>
> Might be a good idea to save this reply for quickly responding to
> similar situations in the future.


OK ........will do,

On Feb 16, 11:57 am, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Neil wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 9:28 pm, Barry Schwarz <schwa...@doezl.net> wrote:
> > Post a compilable example of the code that exhibits the behavior.
>
> > Barry, I would if I knew where the problem is in the program..
> > Obviouly the pointers are not causing the problem.
>
> We need a complete, minimal program that demonstrates the problem.
> There three conditions there.
>
> 1. Complete - A program that can be cut and pasted in our compilers if
> we choose, but at the very least we know is not missing something.
>
> 2. Minimal - The program reduced down as much as possible. That means
> removing parts where you can to simplify it, but still produces the
> failing behavior. Often the process will reveal the section with the
> bug, but at least you will make the review process easier.
>
> 3. Demonstrates the problem - The code you give us should be able to
> produce the exact condition you are experiencing. In addition, you need
> to tell us what the program was supposed to do, and what it did
> instead. If it is failing to compile, transcribe exactly or
> (preferably) cut and paste the compiler messages.
>
> Brian


Damn.......I spelled your name wrong in the last post.
In C, your not allowed to misspell your variable names either,
Brian....Have a good weekend.

Neil

Neil wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:10 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

[quote markers added]

> > Since you don't know where the problem was, it makes sense to post the
> > whole program.

<snip>

> True...But I fixed the problem late night, knowing what you everyone
> told me about pointers, It works just fine now.

<snip>

Please use a standard quotation character like '>' for the text you
quote. Google Groups should quote the message by default. Why are you
removing them?

On Feb 16, 1:10 am, Richard Heathfield

But you just said you don't know where the problem is.

True Richard, I only suspected the pointers where at fault, However
Barry gave me some information that was vital in my search for the
problem, then I ruled out that the posted section of the program was
not fault. Thanks anyway.

-Neil.