which is the better path

[Darklight]

Question:
Write a function named sumarrays() that accepts two arrays that are the same
size. The function should add each element in the array together and place
the values in the thrid array.

Which answer is the better practice;

/*EX9.C*/
#include<stdio.h>
#define MAX 5

int array2[MAX] = {1,2,3,4,5};
int array3[MAX] = {6,7,8,9,10};
int sumarray(int array2[], int array3[]);

int main(void)
{
sumarray(array2,array3);
return 0;
}

int sumarray(int array2[], int array3[])
{
int ctr;
int total[MAX];

for(ctr = 0; ctr < MAX; ctr++)
{
total[ctr] = array2[ctr] + array3[ctr];
printf("Total %d\n",total[ctr]);
}
return total[count];
}
____________________________________________
/* EX9-1.C*/
#include<stdio.h>
#define SIZE 5

void sumarray(int [], int []);
int main(void)
{
int a[SIZE] = {1,2,3,4,5};
int b[SIZE] = {6,7,8,9,10};

sumarray(a,b);
return 0;
}

void sumarray(int first[], int second[])
{
int total[SIZE];
int ctr;

for(ctr = 0; ctr < SIZE; ctr++)
{
total[ctr] = first[ctr] + second[ctr];
printf("Total %d\n",total[ctr]);
}

}

[Martin Dickopp]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <cu*************@zero-based.org> Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> writes:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

[...]

The lack of context *implies* a complete expression.

Until you provide some evidence that this is an established rule in this
newsgroup, I'll continue to disagree.

This makes your original statement wrong. Furthermore, your
original statement was true only in *exceptional* cases and wrong in the
rest of the cases.

Compare your original statement with its negation (both are false,
as such) and see which of them correctly covers more cases.

How can my original statement be wrong, true in exceptional cases, and
false at the same time? If it was true, even if only in exceptional
cases, it cannot also be wrong and false.

Of course it can. Consider the statement "it rains". Without aditional
context, it can be both true and false. If we manage to define a default
context, we can establish whether it's true or false.

If a statement can only be both true and false if there is no context,
and my original statement has been true and false, it follows that there
has been no context for my original statement.

Well, that's my point: My original statement has not been in a context
which would allow you to claim that it must be interpreted as a complete
expression.

Martin
--
,--. Martin Dickopp, Dresden, Germany ,= ,-_-. =.
/ ,- ) http://www.zero-based.org/ ((_/)o o(\_))
\ `-' `-'(. .)`-'
`-. Debian, a variant of the GNU operating system. \_/

[Dan Pop]

In <cu*************@zero-based.org> Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> writes:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <cu*************@zero-based.org> Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> writes:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

[...]
The lack of context *implies* a complete expression.

Until you provide some evidence that this is an established rule in this
newsgroup, I'll continue to disagree.

Plenty of evidence in Google. Whenever someone asked or stated something
about an expression, he was talking about that expression and not about
anything else.

This makes your original statement wrong. Furthermore, your
original statement was true only in *exceptional* cases and wrong in the
rest of the cases.

Compare your original statement with its negation (both are false,
as such) and see which of them correctly covers more cases.

How can my original statement be wrong, true in exceptional cases, and
false at the same time? If it was true, even if only in exceptional
cases, it cannot also be wrong and false.

Of course it can. Consider the statement "it rains". Without aditional
context, it can be both true and false. If we manage to define a default
context, we can establish whether it's true or false.

If a statement can only be both true and false if there is no context,
and my original statement has been true and false, it follows that there
has been no context for my original statement.

Nope, your statement was false, which is what I have always told you.
It becomes true only if we invent a context for it, other than the default
context in which it was made.
Well, that's my point: My original statement has not been in a context
which would allow you to claim that it must be interpreted as a complete
expression.

There was no C code surrounding your expression, therefore it was a
complete expression.

You're trying to use Mark McIntyre's argumentation techniques to save your
ass after making an obviously false statement. They never worked for him
and they won't work for you. But they did buy him the reputation of
c.l.c's resident idiot and they might have the same effect for you, if you
insist in this direction...

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Martin Dickopp]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

There was no C code surrounding your expression, therefore it was a
complete expression.
I have already told you that is was not indended as a complete
expression. And while you have often repeated that a context free
expression *must* be interpreted as a complete expression, you have
never provided any proof that such a rule exists.
You're trying to use Mark McIntyre's argumentation techniques

Your argumentation technique is known as "proof by repretition". You
seem to think that, if you only state your /opinion/ that as context
free expression must be interpreted as a complete expression often
enough, it changes into a fact.

Martin
--
,--. Martin Dickopp, Dresden, Germany ,= ,-_-. =.
/ ,- ) http://www.zero-based.org/ ((_/)o o(\_))
\ `-' `-'(. .)`-'
`-. Debian, a variant of the GNU operating system. \_/