May output the char one after one every other second?

[liking C lang.]

How to write a C programming that it may output the char one after
one every other second?

For example: char a[50]="hello world!" output h,next second output
e,next second output l...

[liking C lang.]

On 2ÔÂ16ÈÕ, ÏÂÎç4ʱ33·Ö, "liking C lang." <2008mu....@gma il.comwrote:

How to write a C programming that it may output the char one after
one every other second?

For example: char a[50]="hello world!" output h,next second output
e,next second output l...

#include <dos.h >
#include <stdio.h >

int main(void)
{
int i;

for (i=1; i <5; i++)
{
printf( "Sleeping for %d seconds\n ", i);
sleep(i);
}
return 0;
}
Above information is that I got from internet.I think
sleep() is best for a delay in the case of outputing
the char one after one every other second,for example:
char a[50]= "hello world! " output h,next second output
e,next second output l...

Am I right?

[=?utf-8?B?SGFyYWxkIHZhbiBExLNr?=]

santosh wrote:

Harald van Dijk wrote:

Richard Bos wrote:

"=?utf-8?B?SGFyYWxkIHZ hbiBExLNr?=" <tr*****@gmail. comwrote:
>
liking C lang. wrote:
How to write a C programming that it may output the char one after
one every other second?

I'm going to assume you know how to write a loop to print the string
one character at a time. If you do, the only thing you need to add is
code to wait a second on each iteration. Take a look at the functions
in <time.h>. In particular, take a look at the standard library
function clock. In pseudo-code, you could write

now = clock();
while (clock() - now < 1 second)
{ /* do nothing */ }

You should be able to adjust this to make it valid C.
>
You could, but you'd be wrong. clock() measures processor time used, not
real time. For that, you want time() and difftime().

Ah, right, thank you for that.

But even then, in the general case you're better off not using this
busy-loop method of waiting. On a multi-threaded system, it will havea
negative impact on the performance of your computer, and on a multi-user
system, it's extremely anti-social. What you want to do is (as usual)
read the FAQ: <http://c-faq.com/osdep/subsecond.html>

As the FAQ mentions, there is no way in standard C for sub-second
resolution. However, the OP wanted to wait exactly one second. That is
possible in standard C (to the best of the computer's ability). It's
unfortunate that the only standard way of doing this is anti-social on
multi-user systems, but if the OP is interested in learning C, in this
case it may be a better solution than other alternatives, and there
may be no other users to worry about yet.

I don't think it's possible, in the sense that it is guaranteed,
within standard C, to pause any length of time. You can get the
current time with time(), but in a multitasking system, the OS might
decide to preempt your program such that, you overshoot the
requirements.

That's the sort of thing I hoped would be covered by "to the best of
the computer's ability". Though admittedly, it's more "to the best of
the operating system's ability" in that case.

[Clever Monkey]

liking C lang. wrote:

On 2月16日, 下�4时33分 , "liking C lang." <2008mu...@gmai l.comwrote:

>How to write a C programming that it may output the char one after
one every other second?

For example: char a[50]="hello world!" output h,next second output
e,next second output l...

#include <dos.h >
#include <stdio.h >

int main(void)
{
int i;

for (i=1; i <5; i++)
{
printf( "Sleeping for %d seconds\n ", i);
sleep(i);
}
return 0;
}
Above information is that I got from internet.I think
sleep() is best for a delay in the case of outputing
the char one after one every other second,for example:
char a[50]= "hello world! " output h,next second output
e,next second output l...

Am I right?

My reading of this is, "iterate four times, passing to sleep() first 1,
then 2, then 3, then 4". For a total of 10 units passed to the sleep()
function.

I'm guessing this is not what you want to do.

You want to iterate over each character in your char array, printing
each character, waiting 1 second between each iteration.

How you implement your "wait" depends on what you want, of course. Your
local OS implementation of some sort of sleep() function is one way.
There are somewhat portable implementations of such functions floating
around out there.

[santosh]

liking C lang. wrote:

On 2ÔÂ16ÈÕ, ÏÂÎç9ʱ49·Ö, "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.schm... @hp.comwrote:

"liking C lang." <2008mu...@gmai l.comschrieb im Newsbeitragnews :11************ **********@a75g 2000cwd.googleg roups.com...How to write a C programming that it may output the char one after

one every other second?

For example: char a[50]="hello world!" output h,next second output
e,next second output l...

in POSIX there is sleep(int seconds); maybe that helps here

bye, Jojo

I think this method is best answer for the OP.
Thank you, Jojo.

Err, aren't you the OP?

Please try to format your posts better. As such they're very hard to
read. Just use the term "using Google Groups", and search Google
Groups's archive of this group to find informative articles on posting
to Usenet.

[Keith Thompson]

"Harald van Dijk" <tr*****@gmail. comwrites:
[...]

As the FAQ mentions, there is no way in standard C for sub-second
resolution. However, the OP wanted to wait exactly one second. That is
possible in standard C (to the best of the computer's ability). It's
unfortunate that the only standard way of doing this is anti-social on
multi-user systems, but if the OP is interested in learning C, in this
case it may be a better solution than other alternatives, and there
may be no other users to worry about yet.

There's nothing in the standard that says you can do anything even
with 1-second resolution.

The OP wants to delay for 1 second; I doubt that he's interested in 1
second of CPU time, as opposed to 1 second of real time.

This is one of those things that you can *almost* do in purely
standard C, but very badly, but that you can do easily and cleanly in
most implementations using system-specific extensions.

Assuming that the implementation provides a function called, lets say,
"sleep", that delays for a specified number of seconds, it would
useful for the OP's purposes. He should also call fflush(stdout)
after each character (otherwise the entire line is likely to be
buffered before being printed).

--
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.

[=?utf-8?B?SGFyYWxkIHZhbiBExLNr?=]

Keith Thompson wrote:

"Harald van Dijk" <tr*****@gmail. comwrites:
[...]

As the FAQ mentions, there is no way in standard C for sub-second
resolution. However, the OP wanted to wait exactly one second. That is
possible in standard C (to the best of the computer's ability). It's
unfortunate that the only standard way of doing this is anti-social on
multi-user systems, but if the OP is interested in learning C, in this
case it may be a better solution than other alternatives, and there
may be no other users to worry about yet.

There's nothing in the standard that says you can do anything even
with 1-second resolution.

The OP wants to delay for 1 second; I doubt that he's interested in 1
second of CPU time, as opposed to 1 second of real time.

Yes, I got that wrong with clock, but after that, Richard Bos pointed
out time and difftime, which do check real time.

[Keith Thompson]

"Harald van Dijk" <tr*****@gmail. comwrites:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>"Harald van Dijk" <tr*****@gmail. comwrites:
[...]

As the FAQ mentions, there is no way in standard C for sub-second
resolution. However, the OP wanted to wait exactly one second. That is
possible in standard C (to the best of the computer's ability). It's
unfortunate that the only standard way of doing this is anti-social on
multi-user systems, but if the OP is interested in learning C, in this
case it may be a better solution than other alternatives, and there
may be no other users to worry about yet.

There's nothing in the standard that says you can do anything even
with 1-second resolution.

The OP wants to delay for 1 second; I doubt that he's interested in 1
second of CPU time, as opposed to 1 second of real time.

Yes, I got that wrong with clock, but after that, Richard Bos pointed
out time and difftime, which do check real time.

Yes, but (a) there's no guarantee that the resolution of time() is 1
second or better (though I don't kow of any system where it isn't),
and (b) time() and difftime() do not provide decent ways to solve the
OP's problem.

--
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.