Reading a string of unknown size

[Tonio Cartonio]

I have to read characters from stdin and save them in a string. The
problem is that I don't know how much characters will be read.

Francesco
--
-------------------------------------

http://www.riscossione.info/

[CBFalconer]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

"Old Wolf" <ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:

>If many people think a word means something, then they are
correct by definition.

This is a false conclusion. Just becase thousands of ignoramuses
think "enormity" is a symonym for "huge", don't make it so.

Or that someone who indulges in physical exercise is an
"athalete". Or that a power pile (a silly way to boil water) is a
"nucular" reactor. Or that "fast" means "quickly". I may have to
give up on the last, I even caught Winston Chuchill using it.
Sigh.

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

[pete]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

>
On 3 Dec 2006 12:39:27 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "Old Wolf"
<ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:

If many people think a word means something, then they are
correct by definition.

This is a false conclusion. Just becase thousands of ignoramuses think
"enormity" is a symonym for "huge", don't make it so.

The meaning of words isn't set by some
authority. Instead, dictionaries try to reflect actual usage.

to an extent, but only to an extent, and always in broad terms not
colloquial ones.

There are thousands of words (probably more) in current usage
today that had different meanings decades ago. It's called
language evolution.

true

If by "many people", Old Wolf means "the majority",
then I'm with Old Wolf on this one.

--
pete

[Richard Tobin]

In article <45***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.netwrote:

>Or that "fast" means "quickly". I may have to
give up on the last, I even caught Winston Chuchill using it.

What grounds could you possibly have for denying it? The OED has
quotations back to c1205.

-- Richard

--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard Tobin said:

In article <45***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.netwrote:

>>Or that "fast" means "quickly". I may have to
give up on the last, I even caught Winston Chuchill using it.

What grounds could you possibly have for denying it? The OED has
quotations back to c1205.

1205 was only about eighty minutes ago. I don't know whether to be appalled
that you are relying on such a short usage history or impressed at how up
to date your copy of OED is.

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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:58:30 GMT, in comp.lang.c , pete
<pf*****@mindspring.comwrote:

>Mark McIntyre wrote:

>>
On 3 Dec 2006 12:39:27 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "Old Wolf"
<ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:

>If many people think a word means something, then they are
correct by definition.

This is a false conclusion. Just becase thousands of ignoramuses think
"enormity" is a symonym for "huge", don't make it so.

If by "many people", Old Wolf means "the majority",
then I'm with Old Wolf on this one.

Tell that to any random majority whose language forms were suppressed
by central authority. I dunno, Scousers say.
--
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

[Richard Tobin]

In article <8s********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>>If by "many people", Old Wolf means "the majority",
then I'm with Old Wolf on this one.

>Tell that to any random majority whose language forms were suppressed
by central authority. I dunno, Scousers say.

Suppression by central authority is the opposite of what Old Wolf was
talking about. If people use "enormity" to mean great size, that's
what it means, regardless of central authority's view. If they try to
change - or preserve - the language they may or may not succeed: it
depends whether people obey them.

In the case of "enormity" I can't see any reason to prefer the older
meaning. "Enormous" now unambiguously means huge, so why should
"enormity" mean something different? And of course the
central-authority-approved meaning - monstrous wickedness - does not
correspond to the etymology, which would simply imply "outside the
norm" without any particular negative or moral connotation.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[Mark McIntyre]

On 4 Dec 2006 22:33:33 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>talking about. If people use "enormity" to mean great size, that's
what it means, regardless of central authority's view.

absolute rubbish.

>In the case of "enormity" I can't see any reason to prefer the older
meaning.

then apparently you're an ignoramus.

--
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

[Default User]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 4 Dec 2006 22:33:33 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

talking about. If people use "enormity" to mean great size, that's
what it means, regardless of central authority's view.

absolute rubbish.

That's the way language works.

In the case of "enormity" I can't see any reason to prefer the older
meaning.

then apparently you're an ignoramus.

Do you use "girl" to mean a young person of either sex? It used to mean
that. "Awful" used to mean exclusively "inspiring awe", now it has come
to disagreeable or offensive. Are people who prefer that over the
original ignoramuses?


Brian

[CBFalconer]

Default User wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
Do you use "girl" to mean a young person of either sex? It used to
mean that. "Awful" used to mean exclusively "inspiring awe", now it
has come to disagreeable or offensive. Are people who prefer that
over the original ignoramuses?

Are you possibly confusing "awesome" and "awful"?

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

[Richard Tobin]

In article <45***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@maineline.netwrote:

>Do you use "girl" to mean a young person of either sex? It used to
mean that. "Awful" used to mean exclusively "inspiring awe", now it
has come to disagreeable or offensive. Are people who prefer that
over the original ignoramuses?

>Are you possibly confusing "awesome" and "awful"?

No, he's not. That is the original meaning of "awful".

"Awesome" is now experiencing a similar change (though in a more
positive direction). Whether it will result in "awesome" meaning
merely "good", or whether it is just a passing fad, remains to be
seen.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[Default User]

CBFalconer wrote:

Default User wrote:

... snip ...

Do you use "girl" to mean a young person of either sex? It used to
mean that. "Awful" used to mean exclusively "inspiring awe", now it
has come to disagreeable or offensive. Are people who prefer that
over the original ignoramuses?

Are you possibly confusing "awesome" and "awful"?

Nope. There's the oft-quoted remark (whether true or not is not clear)
from Queen Anne regarding Christopher Wren's work on St. Paul's
Cathedral, where she described it as "awful, artificial and amusing."

This might seem disparaging, but "awful" meant "awe-inspiring",
"artificial" was "clever" or "artistic", and "amusing" meant something
like "riveting".


Brian

[Richard Bos]

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

Nope. There's the oft-quoted remark (whether true or not is not clear)
from Queen Anne regarding Christopher Wren's work on St. Paul's
Cathedral, where she described it as "awful, artificial and amusing."

This might seem disparaging, but "awful" meant "awe-inspiring",
"artificial" was "clever" or "artistic", and "amusing" meant something
like "riveting".

True, but unlike "enormity" and "redundant", those are never used in the
old meaning any more.

Richard