why return causes an Illegal syntax??

[chump1708]

main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
(main && argc) ? main(argc-1, NULL) : return 0; //line 1
}

1. Can I know why using return causes an illegal syntax...I guess it
has something to do with command line arguments..
2. can anyone explain the line 1?? its a bit confusing....

[Artie Gold]

ch*******@yahoo.com wrote:

main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
(main && argc) ? main(argc-1, NULL) : return 0; //line 1
}

1. Can I know why using return causes an illegal syntax...I guess it
has something to do with command line arguments..
2. can anyone explain the line 1?? its a bit confusing....

1. No, it's because `return' is a statement, not an expression.
2. Simple. Syntax error. Next?

--ag
--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
http://goldsays.blogspot.com
http://www.cafepress.com/goldsays
"If you have nothing to hide, you're not trying!"

[chump1708]

I meant what does first part of the statement (main && argc) ?
main(argc-1, NULL) : return 0;
does...IGNORE THE PRESENCE OF return...

[Mark McIntyre]

On 17 Jan 2006 07:15:34 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "ch*******@yahoo.com"
<ch*******@yahoo.com> wrote:

main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
(main && argc) ? main(argc-1, NULL) : return 0; //line 1
}

1. Can I know why using return causes an illegal syntax...
The operands of the ternary operator must be of the same type, eg both
numeric, both the same struct type, both pointers to the same type,
both void, etc etc. "return 0" has no type and is not the same as the
type of main() which is int.

The correct way to write this (which is an example of a recursive
main, and illegal in C++ by the way) ) is

return (main && argc) ? main(argc-1, NULL) : 0;
has something to do with command line arguments..
2. can anyone explain the line 1??
its a bit confusing....

Where do you get this rubbish? This is the third total nonsense bit
of code you've posted. What are you trying to do?

Also, when posting to CLC, you should post snippets which #include any
relevant headers. In this case, you need something to define NULL.
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[chump1708]

Hey brother...chill off...All I am trying to do is learn the way you
experts think....Is it bad??

[Mike Wahler]

<ch*******@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...

Hey brother...chill off...All I am trying to do is learn the way you
experts think....
What the experts think is that you need to read
some C textbooks and learn how the language works
instead of guessing.
Is it bad??

Yes, I think your apparent method of learning C is
quite bad.

Also note that it's not usually a good idea to
insult those who can help you.

Mark might not be the best expert here (I doubt he'd
make that claim), but imo he does have considerable
C knowledge and can offer much help (if you don't
drive him away, that is).

-Mike

[Ingo Menger]

ch*******@yahoo.com schrieb:

main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
(main && argc) ? main(argc-1, NULL) : return 0; //line 1
}

1. Can I know why using return causes an illegal syntax...
Yes you can. Just learn C syntax.
2. can anyone explain the line 1?? its a bit confusing....

Since it's not C, there is nothing to explain.

[pete]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 17 Jan 2006 07:15:34 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "ch*******@yahoo.com"
<ch*******@yahoo.com> wrote:

main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
(main && argc) ? main(argc-1, NULL) : return 0; //line 1
}

1. Can I know why using return causes an illegal syntax...
The operands of the ternary operator must be of the same type, eg both
numeric, both the same struct type, both pointers to the same type,
both void, etc etc.

Assuming that you mean the two rightmost operands,
if either of the two right most operands
is a null pointer constant, or pointer to type void,
then the other operand may be a pointer to a different type.
Where do you get this rubbish? This is the third total nonsense bit
of code you've posted.

I've noticed that too.

--
pete

[Mark McIntyre]

On 17 Jan 2006 07:43:45 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "ch*******@yahoo.com"
<ch*******@yahoo.com> wrote:

I meant what does first part of the statement (main && argc) ?
main(argc-1, NULL) : return 0;
its a ternary operator, equivalent to if... then... else... endif

if (main && argc)
main(argc-1, NULL):
else
return 0;

except that it has different syntax rules.
does...IGNORE THE PRESENCE OF return...

but you did ask about that bit
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On 17 Jan 2006 08:16:12 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "ch*******@yahoo.com"
<ch*******@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hey brother...chill off...
Sure, if you promise to start learning properly and use a book. You
cannot learn programming from usenet.
All I am trying to do is learn the way you
experts think....Is it bad??

Learning the way we think, by posting garbage posts?

Well, you're going to achieve that, because most of us are probably
now thinking "this chump1708 is a complete idiot".

Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:25:14 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Mike Wahler"
<mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote:

Mark might not be the best expert here (I doubt he'd
make that claim),

For the record, theres absolutely no way I'd do that. :-)

Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Flash Gordon]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:25:14 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Mike Wahler"
<mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote:

Mark might not be the best expert here (I doubt he'd
make that claim),

For the record, theres absolutely no way I'd do that. :-)

Mark McIntyre

For the record, this Mark wouldn't either. :-)
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Chuck F.]

ch*******@yahoo.com wrote:

Hey brother...chill off...All I am trying to do is learn the way
you experts think....Is it bad??

Now this sort of rudeness is what will get you plonked.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>