and...),
use
That's the main differences, although there is also the difference in the ordering (with C ordering, the first parameter is at the top of the stack, while with Pascal ordering it is at the bottom). The Pascal ordering is somewhat more efficient and intuitive, but fails badly if the prototype is not known when compiling the caller - not a problem for Pascal, which is a modular and structured language, but it is a problem for "traditional" terse spaghetti C.
Many C compilers will remove a "static const" entirely, as then it knows for sure that the address will not be taken. If it the "const" is not "static", then the compiler must generate the data.
Of course, "const" data in C is not necessarily entirely constant - you can write things like:
const int axx = 1;
void crash(void) { *((int*) (void*) &axx) = 3; }
The result is undefined, even though compilers will probably accept it.
That puzzle is a bit pointless. Wouldn't it be a more interesting if the last line was (eval (eval a))
Peter
... snip ...
Neither order is a problem for C, since it is required (by C89 up, and K&R 2) that any variadic function have a prototype in scope. This makes it possible to pass the parameters in the natural left to right order (so called Pascal) with an additional invisible (to the writer) parameter that specifies the count of actual parameters. That makes the function able to access the first parameter directly, and also to purge the correct number of parameters on exit.
It does make the penalties for mis-calling a variadic function more obvious, i.e. a crash will probably result. It has the advantage that the generated code is more compact, since parameter removal is done in only one place (the function) rather than on each call. Even the more serious penalty for mis-calling is an advantage, since such errors will be detected very easily, and can then be corrected.
He can BS history pretty well.
Somewhere between 100 and 200 people there is a boundary that can't seem to be crossed with that model. If everyone knows more or less what everyone else is supposed to do, management and coordination can happen mostly spontaneously. If the workers all believe that making jet engines is the purpose.
I'm sure your've seen companies where the people in the purchasing department think that buying stuff is the purpose and people in quality control think that having a very well documented process is the purpose and so on.
A classic example of evidence that a company that is blowing it happened to me some years back. One of the suppliers would send copies of the Engineering Change Order (ECO) form to ongoing customers when they made a design change. This was OK but a little excessive. Then, on one bright sunny day, we got the ECO form copy that made us fear for the continuation of that supplier. There were 3 ECO forms stapled together. The front copy revealed that the reason for sending the form are that they had made a completely non-obvious change to the font on the ECO form.
In article , David Brown wrote: [....]
Y'all is a collection of humans sort of like a pod of whales and thus is singular. Unlike herd and pod, for humans the collective term can be used with only one human. This is not actually the lowest number that can be refered by the collective form. With lawyers, the collective term is the nuff and zero members of the profession, can be refered to as a nuff.
ESOD, the both of you ;-)
...Jim Thompson
In article , Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: [....]
Yes, there are always problems like this when you try to make an analogy.
"if people made buildings like programmers write software, the first woodpecker would have destroyed civilization"
One way you can split the labor is to have people develop an efficient language to write the software in and write a good optimizing compiler for it.
Writing a library of routines is often not a good way to split the labor. The person who wants to use the routines will often spend more time trying to figure out what routine to use and how to call it than it would have taken to write one. The C language library function memcpy() is a case that just about falls into this class.
Depending on the type of software, you also need to do stuff like program dongles and print manuals.
That would qualify as making the trusses some (perhaps not small) distance away.
They can also be made with two sticks for each member and plywood gusset at each corner. The machine made ones like that are very strong.
In article , David Brown wrote: [...]
In "traditional" C, everything is an "int", if you don't know different. There is no problem with compiling with either order of arguments. If the programmer doesn't match the call with the callee properly, it is his fault not the compiler's.
In the, non-linux, PC environment, the normal result from this sort of error is that a random section of the hard disk gets overwritten.
The "truth" is yet another one I think.
Where I work, nobody except a few nerds like me have ever heard about OpenOffice. Let alone the sectretaries who are the main users of office software. When you tell them that there exist other programs to write stuff (mostly single-page documents which, in big, colorful letters, advise people to rinse their coffee cups after use or to shut the door) they look at you funny because they have no idea what a "program" is. They'd simply balk if they were told that now they were to use something else. You'd probably get away with it if you replaced the Oo logo with that of Word and did away with the splash screen. Then they'd think they were working with just another version of Word.
robert
Hello Chuck,
Ok, but what do you mean by attributes? Now I didn't shorten anything and all it left in there was "Joerg wrote:". I am using the Mozilla newsreader, version 1.6 on this PC.
Maybe my newsreader does something it shouldn't. I know it isn't always able to do the correct line length. Actually none of them ever was on all my PCs.
picky, picky, picky:
enum { blabber = 25; co2 = 30; };
will work as expected! (for some combine of "work" and "expected")
Think about it. The truss company gets a better price than you do on the materials, and has to be competitive. If it wasn't cost effective, why are there so many prefab trusses used in building new homes? There are several truss manufacturers in the area, along with a Georgia Pacific plywood beam plant. If it didn't save the builders money, they would make these items on site.
Some building codes require the metal plates on larger trusses.
admit it.
in a
In message , dated Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Michael A. Terrell writes
I thought you had stringent anti-truss laws to ensure competition.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Attribution ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you highlighting the text you want to respond to so your newsreader trims the rest? That will cut attributions too.
Have you ever tried X news? It has a command to fix lines in quoted text, along with some fairly useful filtering tools. I took a quick look at it, but I haven't taken the time to figure out all of the commands and tools.
That's why we have so many truss companies, to ensure plenty of competition. ;-)
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required