tolower() and toupper()

[Roman Mashak]

Hello,

what's the point to declare argument to these functions of 'int' type, not
char?

With best regards, Roman Mashak. E-mail: mr*@tusur.ru

[Harald van Dijk]

Roman Mashak wrote:

Hello,

[ tolower() and toupper() ]

what's the point to declare argument to these functions of 'int' type, not
char?

This allows you to pass EOF as an argument (which will be returned as
EOF), and in C90 (the most widely supported version C standard), it
also allows you to call these functions without including <ctype.h>.

[Roman Mashak]

Hello, Harald!
You wrote on 1 Nov 2006 02:44:50 -0800:

??>what's the point to declare argument to these functions of 'int' type,
??>not char?
HvDThis allows you to pass EOF as an argument (which will be returned as
HvDEOF), and in C90 (the most widely supported version C standard), it
HvDalso allows you to call these functions without including <ctype.h>.
What's the practical necessity to pass EOF?

With best regards, Roman Mashak. E-mail: mr*@tusur.ru

[Jordan Abel]

2006-11-02 <ei**********@relay.tomsk.ru>,
Roman Mashak wrote:

Hello, Harald!
You wrote on 1 Nov 2006 02:44:50 -0800:

??>what's the point to declare argument to these functions of 'int' type,
??>not char?
HvDThis allows you to pass EOF as an argument (which will be returned as
HvDEOF), and in C90 (the most widely supported version C standard), it
HvDalso allows you to call these functions without including <ctype.h>.
What's the practical necessity to pass EOF?

while((c = tolower(getchar()))!=EOF) {
...;
}

That's really the weakest reason though, of the ones he gives.

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <ei**********@relay.tomsk.ru"Roman Mashak" <mr*@tusur.ruwrites:

Hello,

what's the point to declare argument to these functions of 'int' type, not
char?

That is to make the following work:
int c1, c2;
while((c1 = getchar()) != EOF) {
c2 = tolower(c1);
}
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[CBFalconer]

"Dik T. Winter" wrote:

"Roman Mashak" <mr*@tusur.ruwrites:

>>
what's the point to declare argument to these functions of 'int'
type, not char?

That is to make the following work:
int c1, c2;
while((c1 = getchar()) != EOF) {
c2 = tolower(c1);
}

Which, assuming you need both the values of c1 and c2 preserved, is
more simply written as:

while (EOF != (c2 = tolower(c1 = getchar))) continue;

since the tolower call will preserve the value EOF.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

[Simon Biber]

CBFalconer wrote:

"Dik T. Winter" wrote:

>"Roman Mashak" <mr*@tusur.ruwrites:

>>what's the point to declare argument to these functions of 'int'
type, not char?

That is to make the following work:
int c1, c2;
while((c1 = getchar()) != EOF) {
c2 = tolower(c1);
}

Which, assuming you need both the values of c1 and c2 preserved, is
more simply written as:

while (EOF != (c2 = tolower(c1 = getchar))) continue;

since the tolower call will preserve the value EOF.

I think you meant to call getchar, rather than trying to assign a
function pointer to c1. A set of parentheses is missing.

--
Simon.

[Richard Heathfield]

Simon Biber said:

CBFalconer wrote:

>>
while (EOF != (c2 = tolower(c1 = getchar))) continue;

since the tolower call will preserve the value EOF.

I think you meant to call getchar, rather than trying to assign a
function pointer to c1. A set of parentheses is missing.

[SFX: rummage rummage]

Aha! ( )

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[CBFalconer]

Simon Biber wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

>"Dik T. Winter" wrote:

>>"Roman Mashak" <mr*@tusur.ruwrites:
what's the point to declare argument to these functions of 'int'
type, not char?
That is to make the following work:
int c1, c2;
while((c1 = getchar()) != EOF) {
c2 = tolower(c1);
}

Which, assuming you need both the values of c1 and c2 preserved, is
more simply written as:

while (EOF != (c2 = tolower(c1 = getchar))) continue;

since the tolower call will preserve the value EOF.

I think you meant to call getchar, rather than trying to assign a
function pointer to c1. A set of parentheses is missing.

Thanks for catching that. Should be:
while (EOF != (c2 = tolower(c1 = getchar()))) continue;

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>