One. The first element should always be at one. That's why it's called the 1st element. Only a retard would claim that the 1st is at the 0th position. What the fuck does that even mean? Dennis Ricky got that one dead wrong, and so have all it's spiritual descendents.
Name:
Anonymous2015-09-29 19:32
>>6 I think a) is only good when the lower bound is fixed at 0.
c) is clearly the best for ranges and array indices that can start anywhere (like "a".."z" or 0..255).
Nope. Integer literal 0 can be casted to a pointer type, producing a NULL pointer. DA STANDAH says nothing about the actual representation of a NULL pointer, what it actually "is".
In fact if I remember correctly it doesn't even say anything about converting a non-literal zero (that is, a 0 value of a variable) to a pointer, at least not explicitly. By the way, figuring if DA STANDAH nevertheless implicitly guarantees that you can do that (via interaction with other rules) would be a good problem for an aspiring C Standard Lawyer to cut xir teeth on.
The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used since at least the 16th century
The minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) No. 1 in Scotland show a continuity from an operative lodge in 1598 to a modern speculative lodge.[41] It is reputed to be the oldest Masonic lodge in the world.[42]
Name:
Anonymous2015-09-29 21:55
Their considered harmful. Seriously, when people use they, I am unable to understand if they talk about one or more people.
>>18 I have the same problem with `you.' No wait, I don't, because I speak English and don't struggle to understand the meaning of any among the 100 most common words in the best language spoken on God's green Earth.
I have the same problem with `you.' No wait, I don't, because I speak English and don't struggle to understand the meaning of any among the 100 most common words in the best language spoken on God's green Earth.
Your first mistake is not being autistic.
Name:
Anonymous2015-09-29 23:08
Though to be fair I'm all for resurrecting thou/thee/thy/thine. I wonder if there's a crank or several who feel really strong about that and use them all the time, alone against the whole world. Like that bitcoin dude with "tonal system" obsession (that's hexadecimal for pseudo-weaboos).
Name:
Anonymous2015-09-30 12:46
>>22 How does that solve the problem with `their'?
If singular "their" bothers you and the rest of English doesn't, I don't know what to say.
Name:
Anonymous2015-09-30 17:11
>>24 English is like 8 bits per byte, or xml, or json, or html: it's the standard even if it is bad.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-28 4:11
>>7 You're assuming data is a point, when in fact it spans from beginning to end. And array element are accessed by the address of the beginning. The FIRST element is the one that goes from 0 to 1. The second goes from 1 to 2. And so on.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-28 4:39
The first element of an array is the address of the array+0 or Array[0] or *(Array+0). That was the rationale for 0-based arrays.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-28 12:11
>>26 Arrays are maps, like hash tables and "pure" functions (which should really just be called functions). They map an index to a value.
People who use one-based (or arbitrary based) arrays look at it like this: 1|A 2|B 3|C 4|D Arrays are treated like other kinds of maps.
People who use zero-based arrays try to justify their decision like this: 0| |A 1| |B 2| |C 3| |D They do not, however, do this for functions or associative arrays. If you asked them to make a table for functions, they would put the arguments and results in the same row.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-28 13:56
People are getting zerophobic ITT; 0 is a perfectly valid natural number on its own, being the first member of the set of natural numbers.
Name:
Chad2016-08-28 18:27
>>28 Maps aren't contiguous structures, arrays are. Your argument is invalid.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-28 20:49
Benis in bagina
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-28 21:59
CheckEm
Name:
/dubs/2016-08-28 22:04
dubs
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-29 16:15
>>7 Relative position to the pointer which points to the first element.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-29 16:17
>>16 They put it their so you will become an SJW too.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-29 16:54
>>26,27,30,34 Arrays have nothing to do with pointers. That's an implementation detail.
It would be like saying mathematical functions are about x86 machine code and the x86 opcodes for add are a fundamental part of the concept of addition.
No, not really. The C standard requires that the [] operator is usable as syntactical sugar for pointer arithmetic, and that arrays passed as arguments to functions become pointers to their first element.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-30 5:48
>>37 >>36kun is right, that is an implementation detail. There is no reason why it couldn't pass by value or copy the array and pass a pointer to it or whatever else it wanted to do.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-31 0:57
>>38 Lots of existing C code (even fully-conforming code designed to demonstrate proper usage of the standard library functions) would be broken by an implementation that passes array arguments by value.
For example, something like
char str[100]; scanf("%s", str);
is quite common. However, if arrays were passed by value, it would be necessary to instead use
>>41 I know. I saw that as the point of the thread discussion whooshed over your head.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-31 2:20
>>42 If you're talking about arrays in general, then you're right, they don't need to be pass-by-reference.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-31 2:48
C is the absolute worst programming language. It's just puke, utter puke. I wish I never used it, as it distorted my brain to the imperative dogshit model beyond recovery.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-31 3:34
C just had its lowest Tiobe rating ever, so at least we have that going for us.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-31 3:45
What's so bad about imperative?
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-31 4:13
>>46 You have a long way to go before you even learn the problem is there.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-31 17:34
>>46 With imperative programming, it's easy to tell when something doesn't make sense.
With a scam like FP, if something doesn't make sense, they blame you. They say you're just not intelligent enough to understand their scam.
This is why they like C. They get to say ``Imperative programming is not safe!'' and get more DARPA grants for ``secure'' functional programming.
If we used almost anything but C, their funding would be gone. There are much more secure computers out there that don't have anything written in C. They can't even run C.
Name:
Anonymous2016-08-31 23:25
Imperative is absolute shit for error handling and recovery, and you know it. That whole "80% of code is error handling" stat is a direct result of imperative requirements of explicitly managing things in exact order.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-01 1:03
>>49 In my experience, only imperative programs even attempt to recover from errors. All out of memory and other errors violate ``referential transparency''. The common solution of functional programmers is to pretend these errors don't exist.
"80% of code is error handling"
If the code is used in a situation where a lot of things can go wrong, you want that much error handling. No amount of type checking or formal verification would prevent a hardware error. Sometimes you have multiple processors running the same code in case of an error.
imperative requirements of explicitly managing things in exact order.
As expected, you don't know anything about imperative programming.
Now you see why FP shills wanted C to become popular.
We went to lunch afterward, and I remarked to Dennis that easily half the code I was writing in Multics was error recovery code. He said, "We left all that stuff out. If there's an error, we have this routine called panic, and when it is called, the machine crashes, and you holler down the hall, 'Hey, reboot it.'"
They can't compete with proper error handling, but they can attempt to compete with C and Unix.
Name:
Anonymous2016-09-01 1:06
>>50 Who in the fuck said anything about functional programming than you, Mr. Strawman? You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, nor what's imperative and what isn't. Ordering is a staple of imperative, unless you're braindead enough to think it has something to do with immutability or syntax or whatever strawmen pieces of shit like you love to put forward to try to make your e-dick seem non-micro sized.