Re^2: OO method wont parse

You don't have to group variable declarations all at the beginning of a block, as we used to do in C. (I believe that was because they needed to be allocated on the stack by the compiler.) Declare variables when you're about to use them.

Just a little bit of bean counting: C99 allows to declare variables where you need them. Today's C compilers have become smart enough. Here's a silly example:

/tmp>cat c99.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
        char buf1[10];
        snprintf(buf1,sizeof(buf1),"%d",argc);
        int n=0;
        for (int i=0; i<argc; i++) {
                int len=strlen(argv[i]);
                len++;
                n+=len;
        }
        char buf2[10];
        snprintf(buf2,sizeof(buf2),"%d",n);
        char buf3[80];
        snprintf(buf3,sizeof(buf3),"%s args using %s bytes",buf1,buf2)
+;
        puts(buf3);
        return 0;
}

/tmp>CFLAGS="-std=c99 -pedantic -Wall" make c99
cc -std=c99 -pedantic -Wall    c99.c   -o c99

/tmp>./c99 foo bar baz
4 args using 18 bytes

/tmp>
[download]

Alexander

--
Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)

Comment on Re^2: OO method wont parse Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: OO method wont parse by talexb (Chancellor) on Aug 29, 2017 at 15:05 UTC
Thanks -- my experience in this matter comes from looking at the output from a VMS cross-compiler that generated 68000 assembler in the mid-80's. I imagined that this shortcoming would have been solved since then. :) Alex / talexb / Toronto Thanks PJ. We owe you so much. Groklaw -- RIP -- 2003 to 2013.	[reply]
Re^4: OO method wont parse by afoken (Chancellor) on Aug 29, 2017 at 20:54 UTC
my experience in this matter comes from looking at the output from a VMS cross-compiler that generated 68000 assembler in the mid-80's. I imagined that this shortcoming would have been solved since then I use C99 in my daily job, since about two years. C99 is an improvement over C89 (ANSI C), yes. And it looks like C11 improves even more. (C11 is not supported by our legacy build environment.) But my wish list for a better C standard becomes longer every day. It's hard to use C after using Perl for years. You get used to have a lot of stuff done automatically for you, and being forced to do that manually again is annoying. Especially when you know that the computer could do that for you, if only the compiler and the runtime environment were a little bit smarter. Alexander -- Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)	[reply]