Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard 1580
Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard 1581
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:16:08 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, rpl The in band return code is a NULL pointer, and the...
I don't disbelieve that you read that but maybe a little reading in between the lines? 2-5 keypunching errors in the "grammar check" compile perhaps? (little low in my case).
Cite. even personal experience?
Interesting; IMHO it really shouldn't be, considering that some methodologies are older than others (and thus more developed) and methodologies work best on whatever clbutt of programs they were designed for.
Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard 1583
Trevor L. Jackson, III That would be great, of course. I don't doubt that great staff make a big difference...
I'd have to preface by noting that I'm not a C programmer (yes I have the paperwork that says I am, not really though), but I've noted two instances which have popped up in this thread....
gets()... I've taken a few clbuttes and it seems to me everytime the subject turns to strings the first thing that's mentioned is that it's null-terminated (since that's what a variable length'string' is, len-value stuff are technically character arrays IMHO); checking for inconsistencies in that might not be necessary in a closed system (office LAN) but I don't think anybody'd miss that on even a closed WAN much less the Internet.
malloc()... it doesn't have a return code?
(Feel free to ignore this part if I'm way off base. I'm a lurker in afc not a poster)
It occurs to me that those "2-5 defects" may be "2-5 departures from felt it necessary to deviate from whatver "divine planning" :) method.
Hmm, I just reread that and my soapbox isn't that big, what I meant was a higher level guru took a look and spotted a number of departures from a "vanilla" solution; perhaps they were the number of departures the author felt was necessary to write a working solution(?)
Alt Folklore Computers Newsgroups