473,838 Members | 1,694 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 8832
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
Some, of course, will plough on
through all the tags, and I admire them for their devotion. I don't think
I'll be one of them.


<html><body>Rea lly? Cool.</body></html>

Although, this does sound more like a threat.

What you really meant to say:

Don't dare move to HTML or I will deprive you of my most
wondrous presence.
--
Nov 13 '05 #241
te*********@BUS ThotmailE.Rcom wrote in
news:1g4m6f2.1u wlooy1kz4fpcN%t e*********@BUST hotmailE.Rcom:
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
Some, of course, will plough on
through all the tags, and I admire them for their devotion. I don't
think I'll be one of them.


<html><body>Rea lly? Cool.</body></html>

Although, this does sound more like a threat.

What you really meant to say:

Don't dare move to HTML or I will deprive you of my most
wondrous presence.


I read that less of a threat but merely a statement. :) I have a similar
'energy threshold' over which I won't bother to do something rather than
spend the effort. If 'moving to HTML' means that the energy required to
participate is greater than the amount of energy I'm willing to part
with...

Personally, there's loads of places where people can yell stuff at each
other in marked-up text on all sorts of topics already. Why make USENET
like that too? Surely if it was so great we'd all be using the forums at
www.cprogramming.com instead of here already.

Ian Woods
Nov 13 '05 #242
Ian Woods <ne******@wuggy NOCAPS.org> wrote:
Personally, there's loads of places where people can yell stuff at each
other in marked-up text on all sorts of topics already. Why make USENET
like that too? Surely if it was so great we'd all be using the forums at
www.cprogramming.com instead of here already.


Not necessarily.

There are many other things about the web based boards that I truly hate
which have nothing to do with the fact that they are written in HTML -
that part I like.

For example, poor filtering and search options. Unable to read and reply
to messages off-line.

And I could go on to list many other things.

Eventually, however, the web based boards will catch up with the full
functionality that USENET has to offer and when that happens, I have
little doubt that unless USENET evolves, it will become increasingly
irrelevant.

....yes, yes...we've heard the snide comments before...'death of USENET
predicted, film at 11'.

The truth is that I still have great hope that USENET will evolve and
thereby survive...howev er, that is being made difficult by those who
desire to stand in the way of progress. Even a great man like Edison
fought against the superior technology of 'alternating current', given
what it was needed for, before he finally had to admit he was wrong.
--
Nov 13 '05 #243
Ian Woods <ne******@wuggy NOCAPS.org> wrote:
I have a similar 'energy threshold' over which I won't bother to do
something rather than spend the effort. If 'moving to HTML' means that the
energy required to participate is greater than the amount of energy I'm
willing to part with...


There is no reason to believe that it does require more energy.

The integration of HTML & USENET is excellent with Thunderbird and will
only continue to get better.

It allows you to write in just plain text, if that is what you want, but
will also allow you to read those messages posted in HTML.


--
Nov 13 '05 #244
goose wrote:
No, I've been talking about amUSENET.


What is this amuseNET you speak of? Surely it is not the same
thing as the Usenet. Perhaps the soul of the argument is that you
believe to be a part of this 'amuseNET', which obviously favors
HTML for amusement purposes.


afaik, Dude /does/ partake of serious conversations on usenet,
but has seen so many ridiculous/ludicrous arguments that he
prefers to call it "amuse-net" (emphasis on amuse).


Correct! (And thank you for paying attention!! :-)

--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack. com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ _______________ ____| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|______________ _______________ _______________ _|_____________ __________|
Nov 13 '05 #245
te*********@BUS ThotmailE.Rcom wrote:
Ian Woods <ne******@wuggy NOCAPS.org> wrote:
I have a similar 'energy threshold' over which I won't bother to do
something rather than spend the effort. If 'moving to HTML' means that the
energy required to participate is greater than the amount of energy I'm
willing to part with...
There is no reason to believe that it does require more energy.


It requires giving attention to mark-up or layout that doesn't exist in
plain text messages, and therefore requires more energy.
The integration of HTML & USENET is excellent with Thunderbird and will
only continue to get better.


<body bgcolor=fuchsia text=lime>
<h1><blink>OH YEAH? GOSH, FaNcY ThAt!</blink></h1>
</body>

And be grateful I didn't use JavaScript.

Richard
Nov 13 '05 #246
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
te*********@BUS ThotmailE.Rcom wrote:
Ian Woods <ne******@wuggy NOCAPS.org> wrote:
I have a similar 'energy threshold' over which I won't bother to do
something rather than spend the effort. If 'moving to HTML' means that the
energy required to participate is greater than the amount of energy I'm
willing to part with...
There is no reason to believe that it does require more energy.


It requires giving attention to mark-up or layout that doesn't exist in
plain text messages, and therefore requires more energy.


Pure FUD. Do you work or have you worked for Microsoft?

There is no reason for you to pay any attention to such things if you
don't want to...you are perfectly able to write in plain text if you so
choose.
The integration of HTML & USENET is excellent with Thunderbird and will
only continue to get better.


<body bgcolor=fuchsia text=lime>
<h1><blink>OH YEAH? GOSH, FaNcY ThAt!</blink></h1>
</body>


And I would just skip over your message and would place you in my kill
file for being overtly and unnecessarily obnoxious.

So, what's your point?
And be grateful I didn't use JavaScript.


Do you actually think I would allow JavaScript?
Or are you not aware that it could be disabled?
--
Nov 13 '05 #247
Richard Bos wrote:
It requires giving attention to mark-up or layout that doesn't
exist in plain text messages, and therefore requires more energy.


Only if you WANT those things. If you don't, there shouldn't be
any extra effort whatsoever.

--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack. com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ _______________ ____| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|______________ _______________ _______________ _|_____________ __________|
Nov 13 '05 #248
te*********@BUS ThotmailE.Rcom wrote:
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
Some, of course, will plough on
through all the tags, and I admire them for their devotion. I don't think
I'll be one of them.


<html><body>Rea lly? Cool.</body></html>

Although, this does sound more like a threat.


If that's what you choose to think, that's up to you. I might pay more
attention to your opinion if you spent as much time giving clueful C advice
as you do complaining.

<foolishness snipped>

--
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 #249
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
te*********@BUS ThotmailE.Rcom wrote:
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
Some, of course, will plough on
through all the tags, and I admire them for their devotion. I don't think
I'll be one of them.


<html><body>Rea lly? Cool.</body></html>

Although, this does sound more like a threat.


If that's what you choose to think, that's up to you. I might pay more
attention to your opinion if you spent as much time giving clueful C advice
as you do complaining.


oooo...you cut me to the core with your biting remarks....no more...I'm
begging you...I can't stand it....I'm melting...melti ng....aahhhh!
aaarrrggg!


--
Nov 13 '05 #250

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.