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.