Comments are welcome for two sequential search C functions

[lovecreatesbeauty]

Any comments are welcome for following the two sequential search C
functions of both integer and string versions. Though they are simple,
please do not laugh at it :) Could you give your great suggestion to
it? Thanks a lot.

/*sequentially search a array of integers for a value. val: the integer
is to be searched for in the array, array: array of integers, len: item
count in the array. return the index of the value found in array, -1
for failure. the algotithm efficience of the function is O(n). - jhl,
Jul 2006*/

#include <stddef.h>

int lookup(int val, const int array[], int len)
{
int i = -1;

if (array != NULL && len != 0){
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i){
if (val == array[i]){
break;
}
}
}
return i;
}

/*sequentially search a string array for a word. word: the word is to
be searched for in the array, array: array of word string, len: item
count in the array. return the index of the value found in array, -1
for failure. the algotithm efficience of the function is O(n). - jhl,
Jul 2006*/

#include <string.h>

int slookup(const char *word, const char *array[], int len)
{
int i = -1;

if (word != NULL && array != NULL && len != 0){
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i){
if (strcmp(word, array[i]) == 0){
break;
}
}
}
return i;
}

[August Karlstrom]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Ben Bacarisse said:

>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote:

<a very silly bug>

>This has one of the worst kinds of UB

I know, I know - very embarrassing and all that. Would you believe me if I
told you my personal code library doesn't do things that way? :-)

Richard Heathfield wrote (in thread "Inflexible array members"):

Just as I wouldn't criticise my wife for failing to tell me to fasten my
seatbelt, so I don't criticise my compiler for failing to tell me about
buffer overruns. Remembering to fasten my seatbelt is /my/ job, and I can
take care of it myself, but of course someone needs to keep an eye on the
kids in the back. Avoiding buffer overruns is /my/ job, and I can take care
of it myself, but of course someone needs to keep an eye on the Java kids
in the back.

You're not one of those kids in the back, are you? ;-)

Sorry for being such a pain in the behind. Just couldn't help myself.
August

[Richard Heathfield]

August Karlstrom said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Ben Bacarisse said:

>>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote:

<a very silly bug>

>>This has one of the worst kinds of UB

I know, I know - very embarrassing and all that. Would you believe me if
I told you my personal code library doesn't do things that way? :-)

Richard Heathfield wrote (in thread "Inflexible array members"):

All right, all right! I KNOW! I KNOW!

It was my job to check that the code was correct before I posted it, and I
failed to do that. This is now the third time I have acknowledged the fact.
What do you want, sack-cloth and ashes? :-)

If anything, this little incident does help to show why comp.lang.c is such
a valuable resource. The code reviews are first-class, and nobody is immune
from them. That's a Good Thing, even (or perhaps /especially/) when it
bites a reg.

But can we drop it now, please?

<snip>

Sorry for being such a pain in the behind. Just couldn't help myself.

Don't worry about it. I'll get you the next time. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)