Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vhqfsv$bit$2@reader2.panix.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:43:59 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: <vhqfsv$bit$2@reader2.panix.com> References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vhqed2$c71$2@reader2.panix.com> <87v7wfrx26.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> <vhqfrs$bit$1@reader2.panix.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:43:59 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="11869"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Bytes: 2148 Lines: 41 In article <vhqfrs$bit$1@reader2.panix.com>, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote: >In article <87v7wfrx26.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>, >Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote: >>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>> In article <87zflrs1ti.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>, >>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote: >>>>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes: >>>> >>>>[...] >>>> >>>> >>>>> Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would >>>>> be: >>>>> >>>>> #include "string.h" >>>>> #include "stdlib.h" >>>>> >>>>> int main(int argc, char **argv) >>>>> { >>>>> char *p; >>>>> unsigned c; >>>>> >>>>> p = argv[1]; >>>>> if (!p) exit(1); >>>>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p; >>>> >>>>This needs to be >>>> >>>>while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 9) ++p >>> >>> No, that's still wrong. Try actually running it. >> >>If you know something that's wrong with that, why not write it instead >>of utilizing the claim for pointless (and wrong) snide remarks? > >I did, at length, in my other post. Cf. <vhqebq$c71$1@reader2.panix.com> - Dan C.