[ ... ]
I was clear. I asked what I wasn't understanding about how strcmp
works, specifically with char*'s. I gave an example using foo, but
flubbed a quote and print instead of printf. No one until AFTER I
quipped that those were nitpicky errors tried to actually answer my
question. It IS nitpicking, just like it would be nitpicking for me to
say that Mike makes no sense because he accidently used f002 instead
of foo2...
While it's (sort of) true that what they did was mostly nitpicking,
doing so was a lot more reasonable than you seem to realize. In
particular, even if it looked like nitpicking, it pointed out a much
more fundamental problem with your post.
Your question _should_ have been accompanied by complete, compilable
code that demonstrates the problem. That, however, is only meaningful
when/if we're sure that what we're looking at is _precisely_ the same
code that you're having a problem with. The fact that you had print
instead of printf shows that what you posted was NOT precisely the same
as the code you were dealing with -- and it's impossible for us to be
certain that something on the same order (e.g. another typo) wasn't the
source of the real problem.
As such, when you post a problem like this, it's important that you cut
and paste or insert the text of the code directly from the file you
tried to compile, or something on that order. Retyping the code into the
article (which is quite apparently what you did) when you post it may
easily fix the problem you had in the first place, and/or may easily
leave out the part that really caused the problem you were experiencing
(which is what seems to have happened here).