reply the answer

[guthena]

Can we write a C programe with out a semicolon ? printing HELLOWORLD !

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:12:13 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Harald van D?k said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Eric Sosman said:
guthena wrote:
Can we write a C programe with out a semicolon ? printing
HELLOWORL D !

Yes.

I'm curious. I can see the print part easily enough, but how are you
going to handle the return statement? (Email reply welcome if you
don't want to spoil the OP's fun.)

There is no need for a return statement.

Oh. *That* kind of program. Count me out.

Whats wrong with a programme that conforms to the standard?

--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:21:00 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Harald van D?k said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Harald van D?k said:

<snip>

>>>There is no need for a return statement.

Oh. *That* kind of program. Count me out.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that" kind. You don't need a return
statement in a strictly conforming C90 program that prints
"HELLOWORLD " and exits successfully.

Correction: *you* might not need a return statement there, but if I
can't have one there, I'm taking my ball home.

Fine, but its not our problem if some posters refuse to accept
standards-conforming code.
--
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

[Eric Sosman]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Eric Sosman said:

>guthena wrote:

>>Can we write a C programe with out a semicolon ? printing HELLOWORLD
!

Yes.

I'm curious. I can see the print part easily enough, but how are you
going to handle the return statement? (Email reply welcome if you don't
want to spoil the OP's fun.)

Here's a program that doesn't fulfill the requirements,
but that outputs a hint about one way to satisfy them:

/* hint.c
* Compile in whatever way your system demands,
* then execute with the command-line arguments
* firstname lastname wants a hint
* substituting your own first and last names
* for `firstname' and `lastname'.
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argv, char **argc)
{
if (argv != strlen("guthena " + 1)
|| strcmp(argc[3], "wants")
|| strcmp("hint", argc[5])
|| *argc[4]++-*++argc[3]
|| *argc[4]) {
fputs ("No hints for people who can't "
"follow simple directions!\n", stderr);
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
printf ("This hint is for the sole use of %s ", *++argc);
printf ("%s: %d.", *++argc, argv--);
printf ("%.1f\n", argv * 21 / 10.0);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

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


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

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrites:

sravan_reddy001 said:

>void main()
{
if(printf("Hell o World")){}
}

this is the simple way.

Alas, it doesn't conform to the specification, which called for a C
program.

I'd say that a "conforming program", as defined by C99 4p7, qualifies
as a C program. I believe the above is a conforming program.

(The real problem is that the standard's definition of "conforming
program" is nearly useless.)

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Eric Sosman said:

>guthena wrote:

>>Can we write a C programe with out a semicolon ? printing
HELLOWORLD !

Yes.

I'm curious. I can see the print part easily enough, but how are
you going to handle the return statement? (Email reply welcome if
you don't want to spoil the OP's fun.)

Use C99.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland .ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfoc us.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

sravan_reddy001 wrote:

>
void main()
{
if(printf("Hell o World")){}
}

this is the simple way. and even u can assign the values without using
semi-colon. if() is the best to use among

Not fully portable. Requires a #include statement, a type for
main, and C99.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland .ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfoc us.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrites:

>sravan_reddy00 1 said:

>>void main()
{
if(printf("Hell o World")){}
}

this is the simple way.

Alas, it doesn't conform to the specification, which called for a C
program.

I'd say that a "conforming program", as defined by C99 4p7, qualifies
as a C program.

I wouldn't say that. The definition is too loose to be useful. It
effectively means that any bug and any abuse is okay so long as the
compiler can be persuade to bumble its way through the code and produce
an executable.

I believe the above is a conforming program.

So are Fortran programs, apparently. I don't find this to be
particularly useful in deciding what are, and what are not, C programs.

(The real problem is that the standard's definition of "conforming
program" is nearly useless.)

Yes. I tend to think of "C program" as "program that is accepted by a
conforming newsgroup". :-)

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Eric Sosman said:

>>guthena wrote:

Can we write a C programe with out a semicolon ? printing
HELLOWORLD !

Yes.

I'm curious. I can see the print part easily enough, but how are
you going to handle the return statement? (Email reply welcome if
you don't want to spoil the OP's fun.)

Use C99.

I don't have the patience to wait that long. Nor do I have the
inclination to use ugly features just because they're legal.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[jaysome]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:47:41 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>CBFalconer said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Eric Sosman said:
guthena wrote:

Can we write a C programe with out a semicolon ? printing
HELLOWORL D !

Yes.

I'm curious. I can see the print part easily enough, but how are
you going to handle the return statement? (Email reply welcome if
you don't want to spoil the OP's fun.)

Use C99.

I don't have the patience to wait that long. Nor do I have the
inclination to use ugly features just because they're legal.

So what you're saying is that C1999--I mean C99--was totally useless
(at least in this instance) in your point of view? If so, I tend to
agree.

Windows Vista, and even Windows XP, has a "Rollback driver" option. Is
there anything similar with respect to ISO/ANSI standards in general,
and the ISO/ANSI C99 standard in specific?

I'd be willing to bet that most regulars in this newsgroup wouldn't
hesitate to click on a button labeled "Rollback Standard Version" when
it comes to C.

--
jay

[Richard Heathfield]

jaysome said:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:47:41 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>CBFalconer said:

<snip>

>>Use C99.

I don't have the patience to wait that long. Nor do I have the
inclination to use ugly features just because they're legal.

So what you're saying is that C1999--I mean C99--was totally useless
(at least in this instance) in your point of view? If so, I tend to
agree.

Certainly in this instance, yes. The absence of a return statement from
main makes the program very, very marginally easier to write, at the
expense of being very marginally harder to read. The cost is N * delta
(where N is the number of times the code will be read), and the saving
is a mere 1 * epsilon. The game is not worth the candle.

Windows Vista, and even Windows XP, has a "Rollback driver" option. Is
there anything similar with respect to ISO/ANSI standards in general,
and the ISO/ANSI C99 standard in specific?

Not as far as I'm aware, at least not officially. In practice, that's
what implementors have actually done, for the most part.

I'd be willing to bet that most regulars in this newsgroup wouldn't
hesitate to click on a button labeled "Rollback Standard Version" when
it comes to C.

Here's what I'd have liked C99 to be:

X removal of K&R-style function definitions
X removal of gets
X removal of unadorned %s from *scanf
X #ifntypedef (but at least I understand why I can't have it)
X function without return statement not permitted except where return
type is void
X no changes may invade the user's identifier namespace
X no new headers
X operators for integer power and powmod
X (limited) support for operator overloading :-) perhaps as some kind of
preprocessor step:
e.g. #overload +(bignum b1, bignum2) bignum_add(&b1, &b2)
X a C equivalent of STL - that is, a standard set of routines for
manipulating dynamic strings, arrays, maps, and so on
* removal of implicit int
* compound literals
* support for complex types
* %zu for size_t in printf
* variable argument macros
* trailing comma allowed in enum
* snprintf and vsnprintf
* inline functions
* return without expression not permitted in function that returns a
value (and vice versa)

....and NOTHING ELSE.

Some of these changes are trivial, of course. Others are rather more
wide-ranging, but those are also the ones that I think would have been
most useful to most people. If the effort that had gone into codifying
97,000 pages of mostly useless mathematical features had instead gone
into some of these features, I think we'd have a more dynamic, vibrant
language - and one which implementors just *might* have taken the
trouble to implement.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999