conventional core of C

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Bill Cunningham, Jun 20, 2010.

  1. Why after chaper one of kandr2 does it say that the "...conventional
    core of C" has been covered? You have the rest of the book and functions to
    learn.

    Bill
     
    Bill Cunningham, Jun 20, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Jun 20, 7:13 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <> wrote:
    >     Why after chaper one of kandr2 does it say that the "...conventional
    > core of C" has been covered? You have the rest of the book and functions to
    > learn.
    >

    The C language isn't the same as the standard library. Many C programs
    don't use the standard library at all. You can also write most of the
    standard library in C. Try writing your own strlen() for example.
     
    Malcolm McLean, Jun 20, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    The C language isn't the same as the standard library. Many C programs
    don't use the standard library at all. You can also write most of the
    standard library in C. Try writing your own strlen() for example.

    That is sure an encouraging thing.

    Bill
     
    Bill Cunningham, Jun 20, 2010
    #3
  4. Il 20/06/2010 22.27, Bill Cunningham ha scritto:
    > Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >
    >> The C language isn't the same as the standard library. Many C programs
    >> don't use the standard library at all. You can also write most of the
    >> standard library in C. Try writing your own strlen() for example.

    >
    > But what about struct? It's mentioned in the last chapters and I don't
    > know how one would just with the "C language" to right their own struct.
    >
    > Bill
    >
    >


    I don't see any contradictions between the words 'conventional core'
    and the content of Chapter 1. Maybe it depends on what you pretend
    the 'conventional core' be. I think that the first five lines of Chapter
    1 clearly explain what the intents of this brief introduction are.

    --
    Vincenzo Mercuri
     
    Vincenzo Mercuri, Jun 20, 2010
    #4
  5. Malcolm McLean wrote:

    > The C language isn't the same as the standard library. Many C programs
    > don't use the standard library at all. You can also write most of the
    > standard library in C. Try writing your own strlen() for example.


    But what about struct? It's mentioned in the last chapters and I don't
    know how one would just with the "C language" to right their own struct.

    Bill
     
    Bill Cunningham, Jun 20, 2010
    #5
  6. "Bill Cunningham" <> writes:
    > "Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > The C language isn't the same as the standard library. Many C programs
    > don't use the standard library at all. You can also write most of the
    > standard library in C. Try writing your own strlen() for example.
    >
    > That is sure an encouraging thing.


    Bill, I thought you were going to stop using Outlook Express --
    either that, or figure out some way to make it quote properly.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Jun 21, 2010
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    ....
    >Bill, I thought you were going to stop using Outlook Express --
    >either that, or figure out some way to make it quote properly.


    Are you ever going to get tired of beating that dead horse?

    --
    (This discussion group is about C, ...)

    Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
    about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
    off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
    traumas of the participants...
     
    Kenny McCormack, Jun 21, 2010
    #7
  8. On Jun 20, 8:57 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <> wrote:
    > Malcolm McLean wrote:
    > > The C language isn't the same as the standard library. Many C programs
    > > don't use the standard library at all. You can also write most of the
    > > standard library in C. Try writing your own strlen() for example.

    >
    >     But what about struct? It's mentioned in the last chapters and I don't
    > know how one would just with the "C language" to right their own struct.
    >

    If struct is excluded from the "conventional core" I've obviously
    misunderstood the term.

    (structs were added late to C, originally each member was in global
    namespace, so you couldn't have two structs pointi{int x, int y} and
    pointf{float x; float y;}, or the x and y would collide.
     
    Malcolm McLean, Jun 21, 2010
    #8
  9. Keith Thompson wrote:

    > Bill, I thought you were going to stop using Outlook Express --
    > either that, or figure out some way to make it quote properly.


    I am using quote fix right now.

    Bill
     
    Bill Cunningham, Jun 21, 2010
    #9
  10. Malcolm McLean wrote:

    [snip]

    Try writing your own strlen() for example.

    Hum. That might be a little harder than I could tackle. But I see your
    point. I would begin by using a char or int like this.

    char q='"';

    Count everything between and including the " stored in q. That would be
    what I would call a string. I don't use strlen() much but I know what it
    does.

    Bill
     
    Bill Cunningham, Jun 21, 2010
    #10
  11. Bill Cunningham

    Ralph Malph Guest

    On 6/21/2010 11:27 AM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
    > Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > Try writing your own strlen() for example.
    >
    > Hum. That might be a little harder than I could tackle. But I see your
    > point. I would begin by using a char or int like this.
    >
    > char q='"';
    >
    > Count everything between and including the " stored in q. That would be
    > what I would call a string. I don't use strlen() much but I know what it
    > does.

    strlen() isn't that hard, man. a C string is just an array of
    characters terminated by '\0'.
    Take a pointer to the first element and increment a counter(and the
    pointer) until you point to '\0'.
    char q='"' is not a C string
    but
    char* q="\"\0"; is a C string.
    Do you see why?
     
    Ralph Malph, Jun 21, 2010
    #11
  12. "Bill Cunningham" <> writes:
    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> Bill, I thought you were going to stop using Outlook Express --
    >> either that, or figure out some way to make it quote properly.

    >
    > I am using quote fix right now.


    So what? I see that, in some but not all of your articles, quoted
    text is not properly marked. Using quote fix with Outlook Express
    obviously does not solve that problem. Using Thunderbird, which
    you've done in the past, does.

    My advice: Never use Outlook Express again.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Jun 21, 2010
    #12
  13. Bill Cunningham

    osmium Guest

    "Keith Thompson" wrote:

    > "Bill Cunningham" <> writes:
    >> Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>> Bill, I thought you were going to stop using Outlook Express --
    >>> either that, or figure out some way to make it quote properly.

    >>
    >> I am using quote fix right now.

    >
    > So what? I see that, in some but not all of your articles, quoted
    > text is not properly marked. Using quote fix with Outlook Express
    > obviously does not solve that problem. Using Thunderbird, which
    > you've done in the past, does.
    >
    > My advice: Never use Outlook Express again.


    Just a wild guess, but in order for Quote fix to work you have to actually
    use it. Note that Bill didn't say he always uses it. I have never had a
    case where it didn't do what is claimed for it.

    It has some annoying side effects so I don't usually use it unless I konw
    that I need it. Namely it changes perfectly understandable (but usually
    annoying) emoticons and Internet speak (LOL) to mystical icons, such as a
    red 'X' in a little box.
     
    osmium, Jun 21, 2010
    #13
  14. Bill Cunningham

    Tom St Denis Guest

    On Jun 20, 12:13 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <> wrote:
    >     Why after chaper one of kandr2 does it say that the "...conventional
    > core of C" has been covered? You have the rest of the book and functions to
    > learn.
    >
    > Bill


    [granted your question is not genuine since you're a troll I'll answer
    just the same since hopefully it will benefit someone else...]


    There is no hard an fast definition as to what "conventional core"
    actually means. I think loosely [having just skimmed to the paragraph
    in question and looking at the TOC] it looks like he means that you
    now have seen enough C to write a really basic [and conforming]
    application. Not that you have learned all the components of the
    actual language [omitting the standard c lib].

    The idea is to lay on the ground some disorganized pieces of
    information to engage the reader [e.g. they can very quickly be
    writing really trivial applications] so as to make the learning
    process more practical than theoretical. You see that they briefly
    cover "if" while chapter three is entirely dedicated to flow control
    [including 'if']. Similarly for 'while' and 'for'. It means that
    they can talk about arrays [for instance] and use 'for' without
    totally baffling the reader.

    Aside from a few non-ISOisms (e.g. "main()") the book isn't a bad read
    for anyone who hasn't seen C before. You have to actually read the
    entire book though, not just skim through chapter one and then start
    asking questions like you have legitimately tried to study the
    subject...

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Jun 21, 2010
    #14
  15. "osmium" <> writes:
    > "Keith Thompson" wrote:
    >> "Bill Cunningham" <> writes:
    >>> Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>>> Bill, I thought you were going to stop using Outlook Express --
    >>>> either that, or figure out some way to make it quote properly.
    >>>
    >>> I am using quote fix right now.

    >>
    >> So what? I see that, in some but not all of your articles, quoted
    >> text is not properly marked. Using quote fix with Outlook Express
    >> obviously does not solve that problem. Using Thunderbird, which
    >> you've done in the past, does.
    >>
    >> My advice: Never use Outlook Express again.

    >
    > Just a wild guess, but in order for Quote fix to work you have to actually
    > use it. Note that Bill didn't say he always uses it. I have never had a
    > case where it didn't do what is claimed for it.
    >
    > It has some annoying side effects so I don't usually use it unless I konw
    > that I need it. Namely it changes perfectly understandable (but usually
    > annoying) emoticons and Internet speak (LOL) to mystical icons, such as a
    > red 'X' in a little box.


    Ok. I don't use Outlook Express, and I don't know how Quote Fix works.
    I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that it was merely an add-on
    (plugin?) for OE that would cause it to process quoted text correctly
    without further user intervention.

    In any case, my advice to Bill stands.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Jun 21, 2010
    #15
  16. Keith Thompson wrote:
    > "osmium" <> writes:
    >> "Keith Thompson" wrote:
    >>> "Bill Cunningham" <> writes:
    >>>> Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>>>> Bill, I thought you were going to stop using Outlook Express --
    >>>>> either that, or figure out some way to make it quote properly.
    >>>>
    >>>> I am using quote fix right now.
    >>>
    >>> So what? I see that, in some but not all of your articles, quoted
    >>> text is not properly marked. Using quote fix with Outlook Express
    >>> obviously does not solve that problem. Using Thunderbird, which
    >>> you've done in the past, does.
    >>>
    >>> My advice: Never use Outlook Express again.

    >>
    >> Just a wild guess, but in order for Quote fix to work you have to
    >> actually use it. Note that Bill didn't say he always uses it. I
    >> have never had a case where it didn't do what is claimed for it.
    >>
    >> It has some annoying side effects so I don't usually use it unless I
    >> konw that I need it. Namely it changes perfectly understandable
    >> (but usually annoying) emoticons and Internet speak (LOL) to
    >> mystical icons, such as a red 'X' in a little box.

    >
    > Ok. I don't use Outlook Express, and I don't know how Quote Fix
    > works. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that it was merely an add-on
    > (plugin?) for OE that would cause it to process quoted text correctly
    > without further user intervention.


    It is more a wrapper than a plugin. So you can still start Outlook Express
    without OEQuoteFix.
    This seems what Bill is doing frequently.

    Bye, Jojo
     
    Joachim Schmitz, Jun 21, 2010
    #16
  17. Keith Thompson wrote:

    > So what? I see that, in some but not all of your articles, quoted
    > text is not properly marked. Using quote fix with Outlook Express
    > obviously does not solve that problem. Using Thunderbird, which
    > you've done in the past, does.
    >
    > My advice: Never use Outlook Express again.


    The thing is thunderbird is pretty complicacted to work with. It's a bit
    annoying to cleaning up posts. I can download posts with OE and with
    thunderbird once they're downloaded I can't clean them up anyway. Any good
    suggestions for linux machines?

    Bill
     
    Bill Cunningham, Jun 21, 2010
    #17
  18. Ralph Malph wrote:

    > strlen() isn't that hard, man. a C string is just an array of
    > characters terminated by '\0'.
    > Take a pointer to the first element and increment a counter(and the
    > pointer) until you point to '\0'.
    > char q='"' is not a C string
    > but
    > char* q="\"\0"; is a C string.
    > Do you see why?


    Oh yeah C sticks that \0 at the end of every string. And that's just how
    strlen() works too.

    Bill
     
    Bill Cunningham, Jun 21, 2010
    #18
  19. On 21 June, 20:13, "Bill Cunningham" <> wrote:
    > Ralph Malph wrote:


    > > strlen() isn't that hard, man. a C string is just an array of
    > > characters terminated by '\0'.
    > > Take a pointer to the first element and increment a counter(and the
    > > pointer) until you point to '\0'.
    > > char q='"' is not a C string
    > > but
    > > char* q="\"\0"; is a C string.
    > > Do you see why?


    so is
    char* q="\"";

    why did you explicitly terminate the string. It just confuses bill,
    and that's like dynamiting fish in a barrel


    >     Oh yeah C sticks that \0 at the end of every string. And that's just how
    > strlen() works too.



    strlen() doesn't add a \0 at the end of a string. So can you write
    strlen()?
     
    Nick Keighley, Jun 22, 2010
    #19
  20. On 21 June, 18:24, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
    > On Jun 20, 12:13 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <> wrote:


    > >     Why after chaper one of kandr2 does it say that the "...conventional
    > > core of C" has been covered? You have the rest of the book and functions to
    > > learn.

    >
    > [granted your question is not genuine since you're a troll I'll answer
    > just the same since hopefully it will benefit someone else...]


    now you're just being racist against norwegians

    > There is no hard an fast definition as to what "conventional core"
    > actually means.  I think loosely [having just skimmed to the paragraph
    > in question and looking at the TOC] it looks like he means that you
    > now have seen enough C to write a really basic [and conforming]
    > application.  Not that you have learned all the components of the
    > actual language [omitting the standard c lib].


    yes

    > The idea is to lay on the ground some disorganized pieces of
    > information to engage the reader [e.g. they can very quickly be
    > writing really trivial applications] so as to make the learning
    > process more practical than theoretical.


    I don't see it that way. I think it's a "bootstrap" problem. There's a
    mutual recursion problem with computer languages. In order to
    understand X you need to understand A and B. And to undertsand A you
    need X and Y. And so on. Chapter 1 gives you a quick overview of the
    language which enables you to bootstrap the rest. I remember being
    very impressed with K&R partly because of this.

    > You see that they briefly
    > cover "if" while chapter three is entirely dedicated to flow control
    > [including 'if'].  Similarly for 'while' and 'for'.  It means that
    > they can talk about arrays [for instance] and use 'for' without
    > totally baffling the reader.
    >
    > Aside from a few non-ISOisms (e.g. "main()") the book isn't a bad read
    > for anyone who hasn't seen C before.  You have to actually read the
    > entire book though, not just skim through chapter one and then start
    > asking questions like you have legitimately tried to study the
    > subject...



    --

    "Have I discovered what consiousness is yet?
    Not at all, but I'm getting more deeply perplexed."
    -- Susan Blackmore
     
    Nick Keighley, Jun 22, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Goldin

    ASP.NET with conventional technologies

    Mark Goldin, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    387
    Hermit Dave
    Jan 17, 2004
  2. Cameron Laird
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    426
    Cameron Laird
    Mar 24, 2005
  3. Terry Reedy
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    289
    Cameron Laird
    Mar 24, 2005
  4. Richard Lewis Haggard
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    431
    Richard Lewis Haggard
    Aug 4, 2006
  5. Jon   Paal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    407
    Jon Paal
    Sep 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page