What is wrong?

[federico_bertola]

Hi everybody!
I have this function:

int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}

it works but when I try to pass a dotted string o separetad with (" ",
"_" , "-" ...ecc)
it return only first word.
I pass the string in this way:

char CString[] = "I.am.an.exampl e";
Scan(CString);

What's wrong?
Help me please!
Thx!

[Richard Bos]

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@loca lhost.localdoma inwrote:

On 2006-07-04, fe************* *@tiscali.it <fe************ **@tiscali.itwr ote:

{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite. That would be printf("%s\n", String);.

Richard

[Eric Sosman]

Andrew Poelstra wrote:

On 2006-07-04, fe************* *@tiscali.it <fe************ **@tiscali.itwr ote:

>>As you want, the original source is...
[...]
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

[...]
Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite equivalent: puts() adds a newline.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwr ote:

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@loca lhost.localdoma inwrote:

>On 2006-07-04, fe************* *@tiscali.it <fe************ **@tiscali.itwr ote:

{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

>Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite. That would be printf("%s\n", String);.

His original statement /should/ have been printf ("%s\n", String); and
that was likely the cause of his original problem.

You are correct, though; I completely missed that. Guess I was looking
at the intent of the code instead of the actual code... good thing we
have quick compilers nowadays.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware. net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Keith Thompson]

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@loca lhost.localdoma inwrites:

On 2006-07-04, Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwr ote:

>Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@loca lhost.localdoma inwrote:

>>On 2006-07-04, fe************* *@tiscali.it
<fe********** ****@tiscali.it wrote:
{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

>>Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite. That would be printf("%s\n", String);.

His original statement /should/ have been printf ("%s\n", String); and
that was likely the cause of his original problem.

Actually, I'd be surprised if that were the case. It's
implementation-defined whether the newline is required, and if it is
required and you don't supply it then printing a single word is one
legal consequence. But realistically, I doubt that any system the OP
is likely to be using actually does require the newline, and even if
it does, I'd expect the error to appear as nothing being printed at
all.

The OP needs to add the newline and try again, and he needs to
understand the difference between returning something and printing
something.

--
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.

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rote:

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@loca lhost.localdoma inwrites:

>On 2006-07-04, Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwr ote:

>>Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@loca lhost.localdoma inwrote:
On 2006-07-04, fe************* *@tiscali.it
<fe********* *****@tiscali.i twrote:
{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite. That would be printf("%s\n", String);.

His original statement /should/ have been printf ("%s\n", String); and
that was likely the cause of his original problem.

Actually, I'd be surprised if that were the case. It's
implementation-defined whether the newline is required, and if it is
required and you don't supply it then printing a single word is one
legal consequence. But realistically, I doubt that any system the OP
is likely to be using actually does require the newline, and even if
it does, I'd expect the error to appear as nothing being printed at
all.

Out of all the problems with his code, the missing \n seemed the most
likely cause of invalid output. Falling off of the int-returning
function occured /after/ the printf, and most of the other issues were
style-related.

Also, consider that everyone else who tried his code got correct results;
this suggests that the OP was using some uncommon platform or compiler.
But of course that's just speculation on my part.

The OP needs to add the newline and try again, and he needs to
understand the difference between returning something and printing
something.

Absolutely true.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware. net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Suman]

Richard Bos wrote:

"Suman" <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

[code relying on imp. defined behavior]

I don't believe that!

You are free to disbelieve that the earth is pentangular, for all I
care. I wrote that when _I_ run that program, it prints the entire
string; and it does. As for the final newline, the cursor does indeed
start after the printed string, without a newline in between, and a
newline is only printed when I press enter; this is one legal result of
the program.

<fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.
Simply
put, I expect one to be atleast as vigilant as you expect the others to
be.
Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.
</fumes>

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

>
Richard Bos wrote:

>"Suman" <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

[code relying on imp. defined behavior]

I don't believe that!

You are free to disbelieve that the earth is pentangular, for all I
care. I wrote that when _I_ run that program, it prints the entire
string; and it does. As for the final newline, the cursor does indeed
start after the printed string, without a newline in between, and a
newline is only printed when I press enter; this is one legal result of
the program.

<fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't
understand..." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning whatsoever).

Simply
put, I expect one to be atleast as vigilant as you expect the others to
be.

Keith is much more vigilant than he expects most people to be. For
example, I can't imagine that he expects much from you.

Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.

In most cases, it's best to stop and fix slip-ups, especially in
mission-critical code. That isn't what "take in stride" means, just
so you know.

></fumes>

Being angry is no way to get help; step away from the keyboard for
a few hours.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware. net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Suman]

Andrew Poelstra wrote:

On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

Richard Bos wrote:

"Suman" <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

[ ...]

<fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't
understand..." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning whatsoever).

I wanted to know why Richard Bos needed that analogy. Period.

Simply
put, I expect one to be atleast as vigilant as you expect the others to
be.

Keith is much more vigilant than he expects most people to be. For
example, I can't imagine that he expects much from you.

I thought I had quoted enough to tell _anyone_ I was replying to
Richard Bos.

Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.

In most cases, it's best to stop and fix slip-ups, especially in
mission-critical code. That isn't what "take in stride" means, just
so you know.

Re-read. For all you know, you might start reading a bit more into my
post.

Being angry is no way to get help; step away from the keyboard for
a few hours.

Where are you? (I mean, are you having difficulty following the thread?)

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

>
Andrew Poelstra wrote:

>On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

>
Richard Bos wrote:
"Suman" <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

[ ...]

><fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't
understand.. ." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning whatsoever).

I wanted to know why Richard Bos needed that analogy. Period.

Which analogy? If you mean the pentagonal earth one, I think he was trying
to help you understand that you can't respond to helpful replies with "I
don't believe you" and expect to be taken seriouly.

Simply
put, I expect one to be atleast as vigilant as you expect the others to
be.

Keith is much more vigilant than he expects most people to be. For
example, I can't imagine that he expects much from you.

I thought I had quoted enough to tell _anyone_ I was replying to
Richard Bos.

My mistake! I was working on another thread in which Keith Thompson
was involved.

Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.

In most cases, it's best to stop and fix slip-ups, especially in
mission-critical code. That isn't what "take in stride" means, just
so you know.

Re-read. For all you know, you might start reading a bit more into my
post.

I read some helpful replies, and I read you refusing them. I certainly
can't see how it would be worth my time to go reread those; I myself
pointed out the problems with your code.

>

Being angry is no way to get help; step away from the keyboard for
a few hours.

Where are you? (I mean, are you having difficulty following the thread?)

No, I just didn't read the attribution line. Mistakes happen. Take them
in stride. :-)

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware. net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Mark McIntyre]

On 4 Jul 2006 13:28:48 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "Suman"
<sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

>
Andrew Poelstra wrote:

>On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

>
Richard Bos wrote:
"Suman" <sk*****@gmail. comwrote:

[ ...]

><fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't
understand.. ." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning whatsoever).

I wanted to know why Richard Bos needed that analogy. Period.

Then you might want to have said that. What you instead said was "I
don't understand why you need that analogy, I don't care". Which makes
no sense!

Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.

In most cases, it's best to stop and fix slip-ups, especially in
mission-critical code. That isn't what "take in stride" means, just
so you know.

Re-read. For all you know, you might start reading a bit more into my
post.

Frankly, as a native english speaker, I was pretty confused as to what
you meant.

By teh way, if you plan to criticize people's code, you should make
your criticism explicit. "I don't believe you" and "I expect you to be
vigilant" without any supporting evidence does not give anyone any
reason to take your posts seriously.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan