473,854 Members | 1,789 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Asking if elements in struct arre zero

If I have:

struct one_{
unsigned int one_1;
unsigned short one_2;
unsigned short one_3;
};

struct two_{
unsigned int two_1;
unsigned short two_2;
unsigned char two_3;
};

struct mystruct{
struct one_ one;
struct two_ two;
}mystruct1;

Then could I by any change ask on the value of the whole struct mystruct1,
that is all the elements in the struct in one call? I want to do something
like (in pseudo like language):

if(mystruct1 == 0) { print("All elements of mystruct1 is zero");}
Best Regards
Terry
Nov 13 '05
258 8877
Programmer Dude wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
...then not backing it up when called on it.


You and your "calling me on it."

You know what, Richard: put me in your killfile and *leave* me there
this time. I think we'll both be happier.


Let's just remember that this is all about your silly statement about buggy
whips. If you want to make silly statements and then not have to face any
criticisms of those statements, the correct procedure is for /you/ to put
/Usenet/ in your killfile, a strategy for which Alan Connor seems to be
setting a precedent with impressive alacrity.

I thought you were bright enough to accept justified criticism. Please don't
prove me wrong.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Nov 13 '05 #171
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack. com> wrote:
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. I was aware there it had
been shown that sans-serif fonts (usually considered fatiguing
for lengthy text) are better on PC screens, because the serifs
turn out to be visual clutter at low rez (which suggests the odd
idea that a sans-serif, monospace font would be ideal...I just
don't think I *know* of one!)


You've never used a _real_ terminal? *Blink* Even most MS-DOS computers
originally had sans-serif monospaced fonts.

Richard
Nov 13 '05 #172
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:58:06 -0600, Programmer Dude
<Ch***@Sonnack. com> wrote:
Sheldon Simms wrote:
One good reason not to use HTML is that HTML sucks rocks if your
goal is to format text. It is not a text-formatting language and
never was intended to be.


It depends on your definition of text-formatting. If you define it
as "page layout" I agree it was never intended as such. If you
define it as "text attributes" then it clearly WAS originally
intended as such (hence those depreciated tags).


Those are tags whose value has declined?
:-)

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************* ***********@att .net
Nov 13 '05 #173
In <3F************ ***@Sonnack.com > Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack. com> writes:
Keith Thompson wrote:
Two reasons: the ancient standard works, and the alleged new
standard doesn't seem to exist.


Yet, as you say above, we still have problems with people who don't
edit or who commit the Top Post Sin or whatever. I'm not sure that
mis-use of something by the ignorant indicates avoidance (should we
ban C because people write bad C?).

MAYBE, if I'm right that it's inevitable, it's smart to get in on
the ground floor in *creating* the standard.


I just googled and I find that Brad Templeton & I (and others, of
course) were having exactly this same argument in
news.software.r eaders in January of 1997. I am unaware of any
rich-text or markup standard for news postings having appeared in the
intervening years. If there is a proposal, it has obviously not been
adopted.

That suggests to me that the inevitability of this can certainly be
doubted, from which I take a modicum of comfort. You, Chris, might
consider why it hasn't happened if people have been talking about it
for so long. (If you need an analogy -- and maybe more than an
analogy -- think "interactiv e TV".)

Pat

followups not set since the thread seems to be dying anyway...
Nov 13 '05 #174
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack. com> writes:
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:

[...]
Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
count hits on private email.


?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)


Yes, they're called "web bugs".


So, why would you allow your client application to make a connection
back to somewhere as it was attempting to render the page?

Why would you even use a client application that wouldn't allow you to
disable such things?

--
Nov 13 '05 #175
CBFalconer wrote:
Fonts, colors, sizes etc. are none of the senders business.
As a writer and an artist, I disagree 1000%! Those attributes
are a part of my creative expressive toolkit (for in the hands
of a knowledgable user, they can add a great deal to the
information content).
By using plain text and limiting lines to 65 chars I can
display it in sizes, colors, fonts, etc. that SUIT ME when
reading (which I won't if it is in html).


Actually, you can tell your renderer to ignore some or all
the HTML tags. You can define substitute fonts and even specify
a line length. (One nice thing about HTML is the <p> idea. That
allows all users to view decent paragraphs in THEIR prefered line
length, be it 40 cols or 120.)

I still see advantages and no disadvantages. You can disable as
much of the HTML as you like. Or not.

Seems win-win to me.
Nov 13 '05 #176
te*********@BUS ThotmailE.Rcom writes:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack. com> writes:
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:

[...]
> Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
> on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
> count hits on private email.

?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)


Yes, they're called "web bugs".


So, why would you allow your client application to make a connection
back to somewhere as it was attempting to render the page?

Why would you even use a client application that wouldn't allow you to
disable such things?


Well, I don't (the client I currently use doesn't even render fonts or
images), but that wasn't your point.

I might use a client that's sensible about such things (though it's
not clear how to distinguish between a web bug and an ordinary image),
but a lot of people would inevitably use clients that emphasize
convenience over security.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
(Note new e-mail address)
Nov 13 '05 #177
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:
te*********@BUS ThotmailE.Rcom writes:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack. com> writes:
> "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
[...]
> > Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
> > on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
> > count hits on private email.
>
> ?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)

Yes, they're called "web bugs".
So, why would you allow your client application to make a connection
back to somewhere as it was attempting to render the page?

Why would you even use a client application that wouldn't allow you to
disable such things?


Well, I don't (the client I currently use doesn't even render fonts or
images), but that wasn't your point.

I might use a client that's sensible about such things


Cool.
(though it's not clear how to distinguish between a web bug and
an ordinary image),
True.

It is quite likely that I would simply disable the automatic grabbing of
any extra content that someone wanted to include and only obtain the
content of those messages that I believed to be trustworthy.
but a lot of people would inevitably use clients that emphasize
convenience over security.


As should be their choice.

But, there should be no reason that a well designed client could not
provide both.
--
Nov 13 '05 #178
Richard Heathfield wrote:
You know what, Richard: put me in your killfile and *leave* me there
this time. I think we'll both be happier.
Let's just remember that this is all about your silly statement about
buggy whips.


No Richard, this is about yet another unwarranted attack from you. An
attack which adds little or nothing to the discussion. Absolutely
nothing in this sub moves the discussion anywhere. Compare that to the
posts of your fellow clc-ers.
If you want to make silly statements and then not have to face any
criticisms of those statements,...
What criticism? A criticism necessarily defines why the Wrong Thing
is Wrong. You didn't make a criticism, you made an attack. And, as
in the last few times, you are again, Just Plain Wrong.

But let's look at the issue. First up, the Buggy Whip metaphor.

Buggy Whips. Common, default tool of their day. Very useful and of
good design. Have fallen out of use due to changes in technology,
but are still used today by some (and they work as well as they always
did). Nothing *wrong* with a buggy whip, it's just been superceeded.

TTY Text (i.e. 80 colums, straight text). Common, default tool of
its day. Very useful and of good design. Has fallen out of use due
to changes in technology, but still used today by some (and it works
as well as it always did). Nothing *wrong* with TTY, it's just been
superceeded.

Seems a good and accurate comparison. Certainly good enough to make
a metaphor.

Next up, "Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not
withstanding".

Note the other poster's sentence to which this was a reply:

}} Not for most Usenet readers, and certainly not for most readers
}} comp.lang.c.

So, the OP presumes to speak on behalf of most of amUSENET and most
readers in comp.lang.c (and MAY even speak correctly). The reply:

} Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
} the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
} read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.

Can you see that the "Your" above binds to "most ... readers"?

Further, can you or anyone *deny* that comp.lang.c strongly
militates the TTY Text standard? Can you see that that is a
*desire* to remain in the era of that standard? Can you now
see, through the metaphor, that I simply spoke the absolute
honest truth? Can you see the absolute *lack* of slur.

I thought you were bright enough to accept justified criticism.


Justified, always. Unwarranted attacks, never. An you should know
me well enough to know I do not take kindly to unwarranted attacks.
Nov 13 '05 #179
te*********@BUS ThotmailE.Rcom wrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack. com> writes:
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:

[...]
> Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count
> hits on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the
> ability to count hits on private email.

?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)


Yes, they're called "web bugs".


So, why would you allow your client application to make a
connection back to somewhere as it was attempting to render the
page?

Why would you even use a client application that wouldn't allow
you to disable such things?


In case you hadn't noticed, most text editors/viewers don't have
such dangerous abilities, thus there is no need to disable them in
the first place.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yah oo.com) (cb********@wor ldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net> USE worldnet address!
Nov 13 '05 #180

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.