Output as SOURCE CODE itself !!

[Dev]

Hello Folks,

I need a "C" program, whose output display its SOURCE CODE
itself..

How can we do that? Please post solutions along with code
example (if possible)

Thanx..

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Dev said:

Hello Folks,

I need a "C" program, whose output display its SOURCE CODE
itself..

How can we do that? Please post solutions along with code
example (if possible)

/* save this file as foo.c */
#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
FILE *fp = fopen("foo.c", "r");
if(fp != NULL)
{
int ch;
while((ch = getc(fp)) != EOF)
{
putchar(ch);
}
fclose(fp);
}
return 0;
}

Alternatively, look up "quine" on the Web.

 

[Sunil Varma]

Dev said:


/* save this file as foo.c */
#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
FILE *fp = fopen("foo.c", "r");

 

[Dev]

Thanks Richard, that's what i thought, with file handlings we can do
this..

 

[Keith Thompson]

Thanks Richard, that's what i thought, with file handlings we can do
this..

One more time, please read <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
*before* you post here again. Thanks.

 

[Dev]

One more time, please read <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
*before* you post here again. Thanks.

Hello Keith,
Thank for giving me link, i will follow the "Reply" format, sorry for
previous post, thanks once again..

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Sunil Varma said:

Each has advantages and disadvantages.

__FILE__ will typically be replaced by a full path spec for the file, which
means you can run the program from anywhere on that system and still have
it pick up the file from that path - but if you move the program to a
different but compatible system, you must then reconstruct that path on the
new system and place the source file there, whereas my way you need only
dump the source file in any old place and then run the program from that
directory. (Yes, all these references to paths and directories make this
moderately off-topic.)

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Dev said:

Thanks Richard, that's what i thought, with file handlings we can do
this..

Now that you've learned that, go look up "quine" on the Web.

 

[Dev]

Dev said:


Now that you've learned that, go look up "quine" on the Web.

Sorry, Richar, could u tell me what do u mean by "quine"

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Dev said:

Sorry, Richar, could u tell me what do u mean by "quine"

It's something you look up on the Web. Consider the possibilities inherent
in a Web search engine such as Google or Altavista. Consider also the fact
that I would not have suggested that you look up the word "quine" if it
were not relevant to your question.

 

[John Devereux]

Dev said:


It's something you look up on the Web. Consider the possibilities inherent
in a Web search engine such as Google or Altavista. Consider also the fact
that I would not have suggested that you look up the word "quine" if it
were not relevant to your question.

He may be confused by the fact that the top site listed appears to be
for gay, black, disabled, Scottish women...

 

[Jirka Klaue]

John Devereux:

Richard Heathfield:

He may be confused by the fact that the top site listed appears to be
for gay, black, disabled, Scottish women...

Adding "source" to the search helps a lot.

Jirka

 

[Keith Thompson]

Hello Keith,
Thank for giving me link, i will follow the "Reply" format, sorry for
previous post, thanks once again..

Excellent, thank you.

One more thing: it's rarely necessary to quote the *entire* article to
which you're replying. You should delete anything that's not relevant
to your followup, while making sure that the attribution lines for
anythink you *do* quote are still there. Don't quote signatures
unless you're actually commenting on them.

Most posters here get this mostly right, so following their example is
a good approach.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

He may be confused by the fact that the top site listed appears to be
for gay, black, disabled, Scottish women...

Sure, but the /third/ entry looks kinda relevant (smiley noted...)
Mark McIntyre