«

Why can't I change them? Apparently someone is walking the fence and doesn't
know. Hmm? Ask him! (BTW, I know why).

On 12 Oct, 07:21, "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> wrote:

you should try to make your posts "standalone". Please include the
subject in the
body of your post.

> Why can't I change [string literals]?

because the standard says it is undefined behaviour to modify a string
literal.
Many platforms take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
or other
read-protected address space.

<snip Tech gibberish>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nick Keighley wrote:

> On 12 Oct, 07:21, "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> wrote:
>
> you should try to make your posts "standalone". Please include the
> subject in the
> body of your post.
>
>> Why can't I change [string literals]?
>
> because the standard says it is undefined behaviour to modify a string
> literal.
> Many platforms take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
> or other
> read-protected address space.
>
> <snip Tech gibberish>
Because a string literal is a "const char[]"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrTOh4ACgkQG6NzcAXitM9eBACfTZgW8WXA5T u5ZXXMIYqYupLB
XRUAn3y91zFjXYwKYwJgwh1D8kApVK4j
=euxR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

snipped PGP stuff

On 12 Oct, 15:15, Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick Keighley wrote:
> > On 12 Oct, 07:21, "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> wrote:


> >> Why can't I change [string literals]?
>
> > because the standard says it is undefined behaviour to modify a string
> > literal.
> > Many platforms take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
> > or other read-protected address space.
>
> > <snip Tech gibberish>
>
> Because a string literal is a "const char[]"

no it isn't. A string is still a char* but it is undefined behaviour
to modify it. C++ may have different rules but these are the C rules.

On 2009-10-12, Michael Tsang <> wrote:
> Because a string literal is a "const char[]"

Not in C.

There's no const qualifier, just something it's undefined behavior to modify.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Michael Tsang wrote:
....
> Because a string literal is a "const char[]"

Those are the C++ rules. This is comp.lang.c. You made exactly the same
mistake on 9/29, and two similar mistakes on 10/7. Please pay more
attention to the differences between these two languages.

Nick Keighley wrote:
> On 12 Oct, 07:21, "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> wrote:
>
> you should try to make your posts "standalone". Please include the
> subject in the
> body of your post.
>
>> Why can't I change [string literals]?
>
> because the standard says

Good answer. Not necessarily right, but it is the vehicle of the gestapo.

> it is undefined behaviour to modify a string
> literal.

Is that limeric? On what platform? With what compiler? Apparently your
politics are just that. Hmm?

> Many platforms

Oh. A PLATFORM. So you actually know what that is. Trully interesting.

> take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
> or other
> read-protected address space.

I think that may have relevance/value. Until I kow that though, I'm coding
around it.

>
> <snip Tech gibberish>

I do do that.

Nick Keighley wrote:
> snipped PGP stuff
>
> On 12 Oct, 15:15, Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> On 12 Oct, 07:21, "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Why can't I change [string literals]?
>>
>>> because the standard says it is undefined behaviour to modify a
>>> string literal.
>>> Many platforms take advantage of this and put string literals in ROM
>>> or other read-protected address space.
>>
>>> <snip Tech gibberish>
>>
>> Because a string literal is a "const char[]"
>
> no it isn't. A string is still a char* but it is undefined behaviour
> to modify it. C++ may have different rules but these are the C rules.

I'm going to do it tomorrow. OK, maybe Wednesday, but I assure you I am
going to do it. I will hold off on doing it unless there is world wide
agreement that I can conduct such nuclear testing. I am going to attempt to
.... (whew, this is tough)... I am going to write to a string literal. I
want Natalie to know (she doesn't care) that I loved her a lot from afar.
Sarah, you are a princess, and I do love you. Y'all do what you want or have
to do, but come Wednesday, I'm going to write to a string literal. "God help
us all".