«

On Oct 30, 10:04*pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:
> > If you don't know that char s[] is equivalent to char *s by now you
> > have to be trolling and are deserving of contempt.
>
> * * Of course I know that Dick. What's that got to do with anything? Read
> the standard.

what?

> > And frankly I don't get you. *Trolling comp.lang.c? *Do you know how
> > specific that is? *Of the few 100,000 people on the planet who are
> > aware of C you have to be one of the trolls? *Seriously? *Get a hobby.
>
> * * You're the one dropping a troll.

On Oct 30, 10:09*pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:

CONTEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> > And since clearly you seem to know this [judging by your reply here]
> > why the <expletive> are you asking?
>
> None of your <expletive> Business and *I* was right. But that's not my point.

if a question makes no sense then knowing the reason for asking it may
help work what the question is really about. You were not right you
were 100% wrong.

On Oct 30, 10:30*pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:
> > It's convention to use the star but that's not mandatory. *Just like
> > you could write
>
> > char a[4];
>
> > a[3] = 4;
>
> > Or
>
> > 3[a] = 4;
>
> > They're equivalent C code. *Most people would use the former instead
> > of the latter even though they have the same effect.
>
> > Tom
>
> In my original question I was asking about convention.

and the answer is it's a convention that isn't adhered to very widely.
Maybe most code uses it but nowhere near all. As I remarked earlier I
use array syntax myself if I expect most callers to be passing an
array. I sometimes think it makes the intent of the code clearer.

On Oct 30, 11:28*pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> tom st denis wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 6:30 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> >> tom st denis wrote:
> >>> It's convention to use the star but that's not mandatory. Just like
> >>> you could write
>
> >>> char a[4];
>
> >>> a[3] = 4;
>
> >>> Or
>
> >>> 3[a] = 4;
>
> >>> They're equivalent C code. Most people would use the former instead
> >>> of the latter even though they have the same effect.
>
> >>> Tom
>
> >> In my original question I was asking about convention.
>
> > No you didn't. *Here's your original question
>
> >> Unless I'm missing something here to pass an array shoudn't that
> >> first parameter be char *s ?
>
> > And the answer is no. *It's not an error, it can be "char s[]" if the
> > author wants to write that way.
>
> > Tom
>
> Let me write what was intended in my mind,
>
> >> Unless I'm missing something here to pass an array shoudn't that
> >> first parameter be char *s [by convention]?
>
> And the answer is no. It should be char *s [by convention] of course.

no.

On Oct 30, 11:50*pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> Lew Pitcher wrote:
> > Sidenote: /This/ nos...@nspam.invalid doesn't sound like the usual
> > Bill that we all know. Either something has changed drastically with
> > Bill, or the group has been trolled by someone posing as Bill.
>
> * * What do you mean? I'm starting to get tired of being misrepresented and
> accused of things wrongly. I have problems focusing and other mental issues.
> I'm not whining but there's a reason I catch on slow. And a lack of things
> to do with C except the UNIX API. I'm thinking of an example cbc_crypt in
> the API for n*xs that takes arrays and the prototypes are declared as
> pointers to char.

except you seem to make no attempt to compensate for your alleged
problems. I for instance combat a poor memory by taking notes and
*using* them.

On Oct 30, 10:11*pm, tom st denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 6:08*pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > "tom st denis" <t...@iahu.ca> wrote in messagenews:3f556c91-92ab-4d83-96d2-...
>
> > > On Oct 30, 5:50 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> > >> * That's what I have been told.
>
> > > If you don't know that char s[] is equivalent to char *s by now you
> > > have to be trolling and are deserving of contempt.
>
> > But in certain contexts, they are not the same. The question is reasonable.
>
> As a function parameter? *They're entirely interchangeable. *It's
> convention to use the star

no it isna't

> but you can use [] if it floats your boat.
>
> Tom

On Oct 31, 12:51*am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > * * I just didn't appreciate being attacked and accused of not knowing
> > things I know obviously. I am not a newbie no but it was *meant* as a style
> > question as you say.
>
> Not to defend the attacks you've been subjected to in this thread,
> but when I read your original question I did assume that you weren't
> aware that "char foo[]" and "char *foo" are equivalent as parameter
> definitions. *It seemed to me to be a reasonable assumption based
> on your history. In any case, the exact same question could have
> been asked by someone who *didn't* know about the equivalence.
>
> Wording your question more clearly might have avoided a lot of
> misunderstanding.

the sun will be a cold cinder before Bill manages to ask a clear, well
thought out question

On Oct 31, 5:47*pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
> > Not to defend the attacks you've been subjected to in this thread,
> > but when I read your original question I did assume that you weren't
> > aware that "char foo[]" and "char *foo" are equivalent as parameter
> > definitions. *It seemed to me to be a reasonable assumption based
> > on your history. In any case, the exact same question could have
> > been asked by someone who *didn't* know about the equivalence.
>
> > Wording your question more clearly might have avoided a lot of
> > misunderstanding.
>
> * * I thought in other posts and as long as I've been around that it would
> be a reasonable assumption that in the very least I would know the sameness
> and differences about pointers and arrays. Agreed my wording could've been
> better but alot of that has always been my problem. I didn't know about the
> word "convention" but I know I had been told that in the case of a parameter
> declartion for taking an array was a pointer to whatever. I also assume that
> kandr2 isn't wrong. So I wanted to clear up the confusion. I believe now
> that it is legal C but not conventional.

a point I don't agree with

On Nov 1, 7:13*pm, Barry Schwarz <schwa...@dqel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:34:34 +0000 (UTC), Ike Naar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <i...@sverige.freeshell.org> wrote:
> >On 2012-11-01, Barry Schwarz <schwar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:52:40 AM UTC-7, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> >>> Barry Schwarz wrote:
> >>>> Granted that the parameter COULD be changed as you describe, why do
> >>>> you think it SHOULD be changed?
> >>>[snip]
> >>>n1570.
>
> >> There is no n1570.
>
> >There ishttp://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf,
> >a draft version of the C 2011 Standard.
>
> >> All the numbers under the N are in the range of 31 to 45.
>
> >No idea what that is supposed to mean. Can you clarify?
>
> You have never played Bingo??

I wasn't aware there was a convention for the numbers in bingo

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:52:59 AM UTC-8, Nick Keighley wrote:
> the sun will be a cold cinder before Bill manages to ask a clear, well
> thought out question

So Bill is the cure for global warming? ALL HAIL BILL!!!

---
William Ernest Reid