indentation

[Bill Cunningham]

I have had several complaints by some people who wish to help me and I
wish to get the problem straight. I wrote this small utility myself and
added some indentation and I wonder if it is acceptable. It does make source
easier to read.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
if (argc!=3) {
fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n");
return -1;
}
double x,y;
x=strtod(argv[1],NULL);
y=strtod(argv[2],NULL);
printf("%.2f\n" ,y/x);
return 0;
}

Is this a good example of a properly indended program?

Bill

[Bill Cunningham]

"CBFalconer " <cb********@yah oo.comwrote in message
news:48******** *******@yahoo.c om...

There is a program around called indent (GNU version 2.2.9 here)
which does all this for you. It is configurable. I use the
following configuration for it (really just one long line in
indent.pro):

-kr -l66 -i3 -bad -di16 -lc66 -nce -ncs -cbi0 -bbo -pmt -psl -ts1
-cdw -ppi 3

This is the results of my program using "indent div.c" which is the name
of the source code.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
if (argc != 3)
{
fprintf (stderr, "usage error\n");
return -1;
}
double x, y;
x = strtod (argv[1], NULL);
y = strtod (argv[2], NULL);
printf ("%.2f\n", y / x);
return 0;
}

Believe me I didn't do this myself. Indent did it for me!

Bill

[Keith Thompson]

"Bill Cunningham" <no****@nspam.c omwrites:

"rio" <[e-mail] in message
news:48******** *************** @reader4.news.t in.it...

>i like below

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{double x, y;

if (argc!=3) { fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n"); return -1;}

x=strtod(argv[1], 0);
y=strtod(argv[2], 0);

return (x!=0.0) ?
(printf("%.2f\n ", y/x), 0): (printf("Error: x==0\n"), -1) ;
}

This is the part that goes over my head with my knowledge.

return (x!=0.0) ? /*what's the ? and 0.0 for */

There are things in C, shortcuts that I haven't grasped yet like += and ?: I
do things the long way right now.

I believe "rio" is pulling your leg. His code is gratuitously
obfuscated.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <ks***@mib.or g>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[CBFalconer]

Nick Keighley wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
[mutter, one project had a standard of 4 column indent
and 8 space tabs. So you mixed tabs and spaces. eek!]

That is one more reason to use 3 space indentation. Mixing spaces
with tabs is very likely to show up early, and get corrected.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Jean-Marc Bourguet]

Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb .me.ukwrites:

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

brix99luftballo ns said:

<snip>

till now i've never found a system that pass a 0 as

argc, but it should exist,
maybe on a very small controllers environment...

Macs and Unices aren't that small.

Most systems can be made to pass a zero, but Unices (I prefer *nix)
don't do so as a matter of course.

Ever used ldd? At least on linux it runs the executable with argc==0
which is catched by the dynamic linker. So if your program is dynamicly
linked, you'll never get that case but running by mistaken ldd on a
statically linked executable can lead to that.

Yours,

--
Jean-Marc

[CBFalconer]

Bill Cunningham wrote:

"CBFalconer " <cb********@yah oo.comwrote in message

>There is a program around called indent (GNU version 2.2.9 here)
which does all this for you. It is configurable. I use the
following configuration for it (really just one long line in
indent.pro):

-kr -l66 -i3 -bad -di16 -lc66 -nce -ncs -cbi0 -bbo -pmt -psl -ts1 -cdw -ppi 3

This is the results of my program using "indent div.c" which is
the name of the source code.

.... snip ...

>
Believe me I didn't do this myself. Indent did it for me!

You control it with indent.pro. Just make the line I provided
above available in indent.pro in the directory that contains the
source code you are indenting.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[cr88192]

"Eligiusz Narutowicz" <el************ *@hotmail.comwr ote in message
news:fv******** **@registered.m otzarella.org.. .

Bart <[e-mail] rites:

>On May 8, 11:33 am, "cr88192" <cr88...@NOSPAM .hotmail.comwro te:

>>"Richard Heathfield" <[e-mail].i nvalidwrote in message

news:HM****** *************** *********@bt.co m...

cr88192 said:

<snip>

now, I usually code in notepad,

Oh dear. :-)

all in all it is a good and simple editor...

(So you can write some very complex software but not an editor better
than notepad?..)

If you like notepad, you might like to try qed.exe, if you can still
find it. (I think an updated version here http://www.movsd.com/qed.htm).
It has some useful indent commands. And I believe still smaller than
notepad.

Anyone using notepad to write C should be fired. There are lots of
productivity tools which make programming more sure fire and certainly
easier - not to use at least some of them is silly.

I have, personally, never really had that much motivation...

notepad is simple, effective, and edits text files.

I can jump to line numbers, I can search for things, ...

about the only thing it really lacks IMO is a better search-and-replace
feature (so that I don't end up resorting to things like sed, ...). but,
only very rarely is this an issue...
when it comes to C, really, I am not sure what would be added that would
really help all that much...

also note that, often, I have anywhere from 10 to 50 notepad's open at once,
and this was one thing that was a major problem in Vista: it setting a
critically low limit on the number of open windows I could have open before
stuff went weird...

[cr88192]

"Eligiusz Narutowicz" <el************ *@hotmail.comwr ote in message
news:fv******** **@registered.m otzarella.org.. .

"cr88192" <cr*****@NOSPAM .hotmail.comwri tes:

<snip>

>>
well, as noted, it is a lot more common in C IME, but it is almost never
done in C++.

however, I have personally seen a lot more code with the parens than
without
the parens...

I agree with people who write real apps accessed by many peoples. And
these are:

It is clear and it works.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5780

I will agree with this for the most part, as a general rule the Linux
codebase is fairly readable.

however, I do disagree with it on a few points, namely in that I tend to use
rather different naming conventions (including, on occasion, variants of
hungarian notation, including in function names...).

I do agree that globals should be avoided whenever possible, and especially
not be used between subsystems. however, even there, this is not absolute
(there are some rare cases where I believe this is acceptable).
I tend to encode in the names at least some info about where in the codebase
the code is located, and also because of my modularity practices (this helps
both in avoiding accidental clashes or dependencies, and also in locating
where some particular code is at in the project).

of course, newer languages (such as C++, C#, Java, ...) provide other
mechanisms for this, but it is a tradeoff (shorter easier names, of which
one is no longer certain where exactly in the codebase this function is
located, albeit "jump to" features and similar are common in modern IDE's).

it works...

[Nick Keighley]

On 8 May, 22:37, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yah oo.comwrote:

Nick Keighleywrote:

... snip ...

[mutter, one project had a standard of 4 column indent
and 8 space tabs. So you mixed tabs and spaces. eek!]

That is one more reason to use 3 space indentation. *Mixing spaces
with tabs is very likely to show up early, and get corrected.

you misunderstand. It wasn't an error to mix tabs and spaces
it was compulsary. If you didn't indent with mixed tabs and
spaces you couldn't check your source in!

(actually the checkin system ran your program through
indent and indent was set to this standard)
--
Nick Keighley

[cr88192]

"rio" <[e-mail] in message
news:48******** *************** @reader4.news.t in.it...

>
"Joe Wright" <jo********@com cast.netha scritto nel messaggio
news:xd******** *************** *******@comcast .com...

>Bill Cunningham wrote:

>> I have had several complaints by some people who wish to help me and
I wish to get the problem straight. I wrote this small utility myself
and
added some indentation and I wonder if it is acceptable. It does make
source easier to read.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
if (argc!=3) {
fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n");
return -1;
}
double x,y;
x=strtod(argv[1],NULL);
y=strtod(argv[2],NULL);
printf("%.2f\n" ,y/x);
return 0;
}

Is this a good example of a properly indended program?

>>Bill

i like below

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{double x, y;

if (argc!=3) { fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n"); return -1;}

x=strtod(argv[1], 0);
y=strtod(argv[2], 0);

return (x!=0.0) ?
(printf("%.2f\n ", y/x), 0): (printf("Error: x==0\n"), -1) ;
}

ICK...

these are not exactly the way I would personally use the trinary and comma
operators...

of course, I do have something vaguely similar, but it is more of a
"compact" style:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
double x, y;
if (argc!=3) { fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n"); return(-1); }
x=strtod(argv[1], 0); y=strtod(argv[2], 0);
if(x==0.0) { printf("Error: x==0\n"); return(-1); }
printf("%.2f\n" , y/x), 0); return(0); }

usually, this is done for code that:
I usually wont really be reading or editing much;
my compulsion for reducing vertical space exceeded my need for clarity.

some elements of this style may sometimes be used in ordinary code though.

>

[rio]

"Bill Cunningham" <no****@nspam.c omha scritto nel messaggio
news:LzJUj.2452 3$qW.3229@trndd c06...

>
"rio" <[e-mail] in message
news:48******** *************** @reader4.news.t in.it...

>i like below

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{double x, y;

if (argc!=3) { fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n"); return -1;}

x=strtod(argv[1], 0);
y=strtod(argv[2], 0);

return (x!=0.0) ?
(printf("%.2f\n ", y/x), 0): (printf("Error: x==0\n"), -1) ;
}

This is the part that goes over my head with my knowledge.

return (x!=0.0) ? /*what's the ? and 0.0 for */

if "x" is 0.0, y/x should be here a seg-fault.
For don't allow this the program says there is an input error because x==0,
and the program return -1 the error code.

There are things in C, shortcuts that I haven't grasped yet like += and ?:
I do things the long way right now.

this is what i like

Bill