adding chars to a string

[Rick]

Hi,

This is probably simple byt when you never did pointers and being used to
luxery strings like in Delphi or Visual Basic, C can get though. What I'm
trying to do is to add chars to a string. I looked in the string.h file but
I didn't find that kind of function (that string library is more than 7
years old) so I decided to write that function on myself. It seems to work
although when I'm trying to do printf's between those actions I get strange
messages. Anyway, now I'm trying to add chars to 2 strings. The first string
is ok but the second one seems to get overwrited. Here's my code :

/* the function to add 1 char to a string */

char *strAddChar(cha r *s1, char c){
char *s;
s = s1;
s = s + strlen(s1); // the position to write
*s = c; // this should be on the place where the null char
first
// was.
s++;
*s = 0; // add a new null string
return(s1);
} // strAddChar

/* this is how I use the function */
main(){
char *res1 = ""; // empty string 1
char *res2 = ""; // empty string 2
strAddChar( res1, 'a' );
strAddChar( res1, 'b' );
strAddChar( res1, 'c' );
strAddChar( res2, '1' );
strAddChar( res2, '2' );
strAddChar( res2, '3' );
printf( "%s\n",res1 ); // test
printf( "%s\n",res2 );

Ok, the output should be res1="abc" and res2="123" but this is my result :
res1="abc" res2="bc123"
How does "bc" come in res2?? How to fix the function?

Greetings,
Rick

[Andreas Kahari]

In article <bn**********@i nfo.service.rug .nl>, L.J. Buitinck wrote:
[cut]

char *s;

s = malloc(4);
if (s == NULL) {
/* ... */
}
strcpy(s, "foo");
s = realloc(s, 4+3);
if (s == NULL) {
free(s);
If s is NULL, what use is the free() call?

Hint: Assign the returned value from realloc() to to a temporary pointer.
/* ... */
}
strcat(s, "bar");

/* ... */

free(s);
--
Andreas Kähäri

[David Rubin]

Rick wrote:

Hi,

This is probably simple byt when you never did pointers and being used to
luxery strings like in Delphi or Visual Basic, C can get though.
Was this generated by a Markov chain program?

[snip] /* this is how I use the function */
main(){
char *res1 = ""; // empty string 1
char *res2 = ""; // empty string 2
strAddChar( res1, 'a' );

This produces UB unless strAddChar (re)allocates memory (which it
doesn't). Also, starting a function with 'str' violates the
implementation namespace.

Man strcat, but always make sure you're (allocated) string memory is big
enough to accomodate the new character.

/david

--
"As a scientist, Throckmorton knew that if he were ever to break wind in
the echo chamber, he would never hear the end of it."

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

David Rubin <fu******@warpm ail.net> wrote:

[...] Also, starting a function with 'str' violates the
implementati on namespace.

But only if followed by a lowercase letter, thus the OP is safe
declaring a function named strAddChar.

Regards
--
Irrwahn
(ir*******@free net.de)

[Dan Pop]

In <Xn************ *************** *****@130.133.1 .4> "Mark A. Odell" <no****@embedde dfw.com> writes:

"Rick" <as******@hotma il.com> wrote in
news:3f******* *************** *@news.xs4all.n l:

NO! You cannot write to res1 or res2. Look up malloc() and use it, then
come back.

Static allocation is perfectly OK for the OP's needs. And dynamic
allocation seems to be above his current C skills.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Kevin Goodsell]

Rick wrote:

/* the function to add 1 char to a string */

char *strAddChar(cha r *s1, char c){
char *s;
s = s1;
s = s + strlen(s1); // the position to write
Unless you are using a C99 compiler (extremely unlikely), the above
"comment" is a syntax error. Use /* */ comments instead.
*s = c; // this should be on the place where the null char
first
// was.
s++;
*s = 0; // add a new null string
return(s1);
} // strAddChar

/* this is how I use the function */
main(){
Make this

int main(void)

'Implicit int' has been removed from the C language. Granted, you are
not using the current version of C, but you might as well get in the
habit if supplying a return type now.
char *res1 = ""; // empty string 1
char *res2 = ""; // empty string 2

Never assign a string literal to a non-const char *. This is only
allowed for historical reasons, and it's never a good idea. You cannot
modify a string literal, so you might as well make it obvious that you
do not intend to modify it by declaring the pointers const:

const char *res1 = "";
const char *res2 = "";

If you make this change, you will find that your program no longer
compiles. This is because it contains an error. The error (attempting to
modify a string literal) was there before, the compiler just wasn't able
to detect it. Once you use the correct type for res1 and res2, it can
detect it.

-Kevin
--
My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Kevin Goodsell <us************ *********@never box.com> spoke thus:

Unless you are using a C99 compiler (extremely unlikely), the above
"comment" is a syntax error. Use /* */ comments instead.

Well, it isn't conforming, but he could easily have a compiler that supports
this extension...

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:38:00 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Irrwahn
Grausewitz <ir*******@free net.de> wrote:

David Rubin <fu******@warpm ail.net> wrote:

[...] Also, starting a function with 'str' violates the
implementatio n namespace.

But only if followed by a lowercase letter, thus the OP is safe
declaring a function named strAddChar.

Safe but dangerous. /He/ might realise the above rule, but the next
maintainer might not. T'is safer just to steer clear entirely of RYO
str.. functions.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[L.J. Buitinck]

Andreas Kahari wrote:

If s is NULL, what use is the free() call?

you're right, excuse me.
char *p, *s;

s = malloc(4);
if (s == NULL) {
/* ... */
}
strcpy(s, "foo");
p = realloc(s, 4+3);
if (p == NULL) {
free(s);
/* ... */
}
s = p;
strcat(s, "bar");
one more alternative: use astring from
http://www.mibsoftware.com/libmib/astring

--
Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.

Lars

[Simon Biber]

"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <ir*******@free net.de> wrote:

David Rubin <fu******@warpm ail.net> wrote:

[...] Also, starting a function with 'str' violates the
implementati on namespace.

But only if followed by a lowercase letter, thus the OP is safe
declaring a function named strAddChar.

Only safe if that function is declared static. Otherwise the
external name of the function may conflict with any identifier
starting with 'stradd', since external identifiers need not
be case-sensitive.

C89 3.1.2 Identifiers:
"The implementation may further restrict the significance of
an external name (an identifier that has external linkage)
to six characters and may ignore distinctions of alphabetical
case for such names."

--
Simon.

[Simon Biber]

"Christophe r Benson-Manica" <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:

Kevin Goodsell <us************ *********@never box.com> spoke thus:

Unless you are using a C99 compiler (extremely unlikely), the
above "comment" is a syntax error. Use /* */ comments instead.

Well, it isn't conforming, but he could easily have a compiler that
supports this extension...

Such a compiler is not a C compiler, so it is off-topic.

--
Simon.