Accessing a global variable when there is a local variable in the same name

[Mohanasundaram]

int i = 10;
int main()
{
int i = 20;
return 0;
}

Hi All,

I want to access the global variable i inside the main. Is there
a way to do this in C?

Regards,
Mohan.

[Mohanasundaram]

You Dan idiot mind your language. I am not asking you to give me the
answer now. I am talking about your original posting. Dont think than
you are the great in the world. Stop being rude and stop using foul
language.

[Mohanasundaram]

>And I'd recommend to

other posters, particularly newbies, that if you see us going off
track in discussing something you've asked about, please jump in early
and clarify what you really meant.

[Mohan] Hi Thomson, Thanks for your explanation. I should have jumped
in in early stage and should have clarified what I really meant. But I
could not do that because last week i was not well and did not come to
office. But what made me upset was Dan's rudeness. If newbies want to
clarify something which is not easily found in book or want a expert
comment the only place is this group. This is to share our knowledge
and help people learn C. If people like Dan behave like this then new
comers will stamp this group as the one with a bunch or rude people
who call themselves as experts.

Regards,
Mohan.

[Keith Thompson]

mo************@ msn.com (Mohanasundaram ) writes:

And I'd recommend to
other posters, particularly newbies, that if you see us going off
track in discussing something you've asked about, please jump in early
and clarify what you really meant.

[Mohan] Hi Thomson, Thanks for your explanation.

You're welcome.

BTW, my last name is spelled Thompson, but just call me Keith.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dan Pop]

In <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> writes:

Da*****@cern.c h (Dan Pop) writes:

In <9b************ *************@p osting.google.c om>
mo************@ msn.com (Mohanasundaram ) writes:

>Hi Dan,
>
> This was an interview question. It is not a homework question. I
>just wanted to know whether it is possible to do that like what we do
>in C++. We use :: operator in C++ to access the global variable. I
>wanted to know is there any language support in C to do this. If you
>know please share the answer. If not please ......
Are you a patent idiot or what? I have already provided the answer.
Or are you unable to read standard C code?

There was no mention of the C++ :: operator in your initial question,
was it?

The intent of Mohanasundaram' s original question was to ask whether C
has an operator that provides access to declarations in outer scopes
that are otherwise hidden. (That wasn't entirely clear from his
original question, but it's very clear now that he's come back and
clarified it.)

That was not clear *at all* from his original question:

int i = 10;
int main()
{
int i = 20;
return 0;
}

Hi All,

I want to access the global variable i inside the main. Is there
a way to do this in C?

How can you read "Is there a way to do this in C?" as "Does C provide any
scope resolution operator?" ? Am I English impaired or what? The
questions asks for a solution *without* imposing *anything* on that
solution, as in "Is there an operator for doing that in C?".

The OP's "clarificat ion" is actually a *completely* different question.
And I would answer with another question: why would C need a scope
resolution operator?
There are such operators in some other languages (C++
and Perl have "::", Ada has ".", and I'm sure there are plenty of
other examples).
Languages that *need* such an operator (for one *good* reason or another).
In C, all you have to do to access the "global" variable is not to
reuse its name. Couldn't be simpler than that.
The question might have been clearer if he had
mentioned C++'s "::" operator, but this is, after all, a C newsgroup.
So what? It is current practice to include references to other
programming languages in questions, to make your intent clearer to those
familiar to those languages.
The underlying question was actually a very good one, regardless of
the fact that the answer happens to be "no".

I don't think so, as long as it was about a feature that C doesn't need
in the first place. If you're aware of any *good* use for a scope
resolution operator in C, please elaborate.

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

[Keith Thompson]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...]

How can you read "Is there a way to do this in C?" as "Does C provide any
scope resolution operator?" ? Am I English impaired or what? The
questions asks for a solution *without* imposing *anything* on that
solution, as in "Is there an operator for doing that in C?".
I already said that the original question was unclear. I did manage
to figure out the intent before the OP posted his followup; I ascribe
that mostly to luck and to the fact that I spent many years
programming in Ada, a language that does have a scope resolution
mechanism.

I believe that the lack of clarity in the original question was an
innocent oversight, not an indication that the original poster is an
idiot, but I don't care to argue the point.
The OP's "clarificat ion" is actually a *completely* different question.
And I would answer with another question: why would C need a scope
resolution operator?

It probably doesn't. I said that C lacks such a mechanism; I never
said that it needs one.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Mark McIntyre]

On 2 Jul 2004 01:22:45 -0700, in comp.lang.c , mo************@ msn.com
(Mohanasundaram ) wrote:

office. But what made me upset was Dan's rudeness.

Don't waste your time and energy being upset about that - Dan has the
social skills of a skunk, and treats everyone that way.

He is however a C expert, and rarely wrong, once you pick your way through
the insults, contempt and overweening self-esteem
--
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 =---
----== 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 =---

[kal]

mo************@ msn.com (Mohanasundaram ) wrote in message news:<9b******* *************** ****@posting.go ogle.com>...

You Dan <expletive> mind your language.

Now, now! There is no need for that.

Your original question should have been:
"Is there a scope resolution operator in C?"

The answer is NO. If you think about it (it took me a
while but then I am slow) you will see that there is
no need for such an operator in C.

No inheritance hence no need for scope resolution!

It seems that those who decide upon C specifications are
more apt to apply Occam's razor than not. Which, IMHO,
is just as well.

I suspect that the interviewer was interested not in the
answer itself but rather if you have grasped the concepts
of C++.

<OT>
Your satement, referred to above, is also poorly phrased.
A more indiomatic version would be:
"Mohanasundaram , you <expletive>, mind your tongue!"
</OT>

[Dan Pop]

In <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> writes:

Da*****@cern.c h (Dan Pop) writes:
[...]

How can you read "Is there a way to do this in C?" as "Does C provide any
scope resolution operator?" ? Am I English impaired or what? The
questions asks for a solution *without* imposing *anything* on that
solution, as in "Is there an operator for doing that in C?".
I already said that the original question was unclear.

Wrong, it was crystal-clear. Show me what part of it was phrased in
unclear terms.
I believe that the lack of clarity in the original question was an
innocent oversight,

There was no lack of clarity in the original question, unless you can
point out where exactly it was unclear.

The OP posted a clearly formulated question. It's no one else's
fault that his clearly formulated question did not match his intent.

The OP's "clarificat ion" is actually a *completely* different question.
And I would answer with another question: why would C need a scope
resolution operator?

It probably doesn't. I said that C lacks such a mechanism; I never
said that it needs one.

You *implied* it, when mentioning other languages having it, without
pointing out that C doesn't need have it because there is no need for it.

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

[Keith Thompson]

Dan, we're we're having a conversation here, not writing a standard.
You insist on nit-picking every little nuance, even when the intent is
perfectly clear to anyone who's willing to pay some attention. It's a
waste of everybody's time.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Mohanasundaram]

> Your original question should have been:

"Is there a scope resolution operator in C?"

The answer is NO. If you think about it (it took me a
while but then I am slow) you will see that there is
no need for such an operator in C.

No inheritance hence no need for scope resolution!

It seems that those who decide upon C specifications are
more apt to apply Occam's razor than not. Which, IMHO,
is just as well.

I suspect that the interviewer was interested not in the
answer itself but rather if you have grasped the concepts
of C++.

Hi Dan,

Thanks a lot for your wonderful explanation. Thanks a lot.

Regards,
Mohan.