473,322 Members | 1,352 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,322 software developers and data experts.

Unused arguments

Hi

I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}

This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.

Does anyone here see a problem with this extension?

jacob
Jul 20 '07 #1
33 4085
jacob navia said:
Hi

I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}

This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.

Does anyone here see a problem with this extension?
Clearly, like any extension, its provision or otherwise is entirely your
affair as an implementor. Equally clearly, like any extension, it can't
be used in code that is intended to be portable. I don't see any
particular problem with implementing it, but any C programmer who wants
his or her code to be portable would be a fool to use it.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jul 20 '07 #2
jacob navia wrote, On 20/07/07 20:58:
Hi

I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}

This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.

Does anyone here see a problem with this extension?
Yes, the code won't compile on other implementations. You could do
something like
int fn(int a, int b, double d /*unused*/)

Then it will compile anywhere.

Or look up exactly what syntax the various lint tools use and use that,
then it will be even more use.
--
Flash Gordon
Jul 20 '07 #3
jacob navia wrote:
Hi

I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}

This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.
As one who likes to bash C++, you sure like to add C++ features to your
compiler!
Does anyone here see a problem with this extension?
Just the usual portability issues.

--
Ian Collins.
Jul 20 '07 #4
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Hi

I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}

This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.
As one who likes to bash C++, you sure like to add C++ features to your
compiler!
I do not "bash" C++. I find it it is too complex for my taste,
that's all. Some features are neat, as you see, and I have added
them into the lcc-win32 compiler system.
>Does anyone here see a problem with this extension?
Just the usual portability issues.
Jul 20 '07 #5
jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Hi

I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}

This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.
As one who likes to bash C++, you sure like to add C++ features to your
compiler!

I do not "bash" C++. I find it it is too complex for my taste,
that's all. Some features are neat, as you see, and I have added
them into the lcc-win32 compiler system.
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?

--
Ian Collins.
Jul 20 '07 #6
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Ian Collins wrote:
>>jacob navia wrote:
Hi

I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}

This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.

As one who likes to bash C++, you sure like to add C++ features to your
compiler!
I do not "bash" C++. I find it it is too complex for my taste,
that's all. Some features are neat, as you see, and I have added
them into the lcc-win32 compiler system.
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?
The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.

I am convinced that the OO approach is not the answer to
the complexity problems with software. If you use C++ you
have to swallow a large amount of OO (C++ style):

constructors/destructors
for instance.

My approach is to propose a GC, that solves the memory management
problem in a much more elegant way without the constructors/destructors
overhead and problems.

The difference between C and C++ is that C is a much simpler language,
without any preconceived "programming model" behind it.

Of course, it needs some syntactic sugar (operator overloading,
generic functions, and similar stuff) but retaining its inherent
simplicity.

This is a tight walk, but I think it is better to keep a C compiler
(with extensions) than buy the whole enchilada and go to C++.

jacob
Jul 20 '07 #7
jacob navia said:
Ian Collins wrote:
>>>jacob navia wrote:
>
I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}
>
<snip>
>>>
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?

The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.
If we're going to stick with C, which is a great idea, then we might as
well stick with C. If people start to use your extension, they are no
longer programming in C, but in lcc-win32, and their code will be
locked into your implementation. For those who need to write portable
code, this is not a great idea.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jul 20 '07 #8
jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>>>
I do not "bash" C++. I find it it is too complex for my taste,
that's all. Some features are neat, as you see, and I have added
them into the lcc-win32 compiler system.
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?

The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.

I am convinced that the OO approach is not the answer to
the complexity problems with software. If you use C++ you
have to swallow a large amount of OO (C++ style):

constructors/destructors
for instance.
I though you might resort to that piece of FUD.

You forget that C++ shares C's underlying rule that you don't pay for
what you don't use.
>
The difference between C and C++ is that C is a much simpler language,
without any preconceived "programming model" behind it.
C++ is a multi paradigm language, there is no preconceived "programming
model" behind it.
Of course, it needs some syntactic sugar (operator overloading,
generic functions, and similar stuff) but retaining its inherent
simplicity.
As soon as you add extensions, you are leaving C and producing your own,
non-portable dialect. Using a small subset of C++ gives you portable code.

--
Ian Collins.
Jul 20 '07 #9
jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Hi
>
I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}
>
This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.
>
As one who likes to bash C++, you sure like to add C++ features to your
compiler!

I do not "bash" C++. I find it it is too complex for my taste,
that's all. Some features are neat, as you see, and I have added
them into the lcc-win32 compiler system.
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?

The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.
And your non-Standard extensions don't?

[ ... ]
My approach is to propose a GC, that solves the memory management
problem in a much more elegant way without the constructors/destructors
overhead and problems.
GCs are not suitable for many application areas. They are also not as
reliable as explicit memory management by a careful programmer.
The difference between C and C++ is that C is a much simpler language,
without any preconceived "programming model" behind it.
C++ is a multi-paradigm language. You need not use the OO features if you do
not want to.
Of course, it needs some syntactic sugar (operator overloading,
generic functions, and similar stuff) but retaining its inherent
simplicity.

This is a tight walk, but I think it is better to keep a C compiler
(with extensions) than buy the whole enchilada and go to C++.
But the more you give into temptations for fancy features, the more you're
tipping towards the C++ side.

Jul 21 '07 #10

"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote in message
news:46**********************@news.orange.fr...
>
>Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?

The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.

I am convinced that the OO approach is not the answer to
the complexity problems with software. If you use C++ you
have to swallow a large amount of OO (C++ style):
My view is that about 20% of programs are inherently object-oriented, about
80% inherently procedural. OO has been grossly oversold as the one true
software methodology. In fact OO is harder to do, harder to implement, and
harder to change than a procedural program. However it is easier to add
functionality without rewriting source files. 3DS Max is an example of a
well-designed OO program. In fact it is the only example of a good one I am
familiar with. Microsoft Foundation Classes were a more typical example of a
bad OO system.
>
You can solve about 75% of the memory management problem with xmalloc(), a
malloc() wrapper that never returns null. You've still got to free memory,
but you don't have to unwind your data structures every time the system
refuses to give you 100 bytes for a string.
>
This is a tight walk, but I think it is better to keep a C compiler
(with extensions) than buy the whole enchilada and go to C++.
You want "a better C" rather than "C with classes". C++ is frequently used
as both, which in practise leads to horrible kludges. It is very hard to
tell people that "the compiler offers feature X, but we are rejecting it"
unless you can actually produce a physical compiler that won't accept X.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Jul 21 '07 #11
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 21/07/07 22:04:
>
"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote in message
news:46**********************@news.orange.fr...
>>
>>Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?

The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.

I am convinced that the OO approach is not the answer to
the complexity problems with software. If you use C++ you
have to swallow a large amount of OO (C++ style):
My view is that about 20% of programs are inherently object-oriented,
about 80% inherently procedural.
You've missed out the programs which are inherently functional...
OO has been grossly oversold as the one
true software methodology.
The same is true of all software methodologies, since there is not "one
true" software methodology.

<snip>
>This is a tight walk, but I think it is better to keep a C compiler
(with extensions) than buy the whole enchilada and go to C++.
You want "a better C" rather than "C with classes". C++ is frequently
used as both, which in practise leads to horrible kludges. It is very
hard to tell people that "the compiler offers feature X, but we are
rejecting it" unless you can actually produce a physical compiler that
won't accept X.
Then you've not worked in an environment with proper procedures,
standards and reviews. Where I used to work there were a number of
things that were enforced and it worked, to a lesser extent the same is
true where I work now.
--
Flash Gordon
Jul 21 '07 #12
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}

This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.
It's unnecessary. Write better code.
>As one who likes to bash C++, you sure like to add C++ features to your
compiler!

I do not "bash" C++. I find it it is too complex for my taste,
that's all. Some features are neat, as you see, and I have added
them into the lcc-win32 compiler system.
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?

The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.
The problem with your approach is that you have to do the same.
This is a tight walk, but I think it is better to keep a C compiler
(with extensions) than buy the whole enchilada and go to C++.
For the common user, the difference is nought, except that, when he
_does_ want to use the parts of C++ that you find abhorrent, he can do
so when he uses C++, and not when he uses your win32-((lcc++)--).

Richard
Jul 23 '07 #13

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
news:hq************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 21/07/07 22:04:
>>
"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote in message
news:46**********************@news.orange.fr...
>>>
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?
The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.

I am convinced that the OO approach is not the answer to
the complexity problems with software. If you use C++ you
have to swallow a large amount of OO (C++ style):
My view is that about 20% of programs are inherently object-oriented,
about 80% inherently procedural.

You've missed out the programs which are inherently functional...
I have never seen commercial software that uses a functional language. Do
you know an example?
Or well, XSL comes close but its hardly a standalone language
Then you've not worked in an environment with proper procedures, standards
and reviews. Where I used to work there were a number of things that were
enforced and it worked, to a lesser extent the same is true where I work
now.
In my experience and from what I hear from other programmers its very very
hard to get programmers to agree on something. What kind of companies are
those?
--
Flash Gordon

Jul 23 '07 #14
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:52:56 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
>>>This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.

It's unnecessary. Write better code.
To be fair, its sometimes quite useful. Imagine having an array of
function pointers with the one to be called depending on some user
input.
--
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
Jul 23 '07 #15
On Jul 23, 7:52 pm, r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
>>jacob navia wrote:
>>>I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
>>>int fn(int a, int b,double)
>>>{
>>>// body of the function
>>>}

It's unnecessary. Write better code.
Well, what construct is absolutely necessary ?

This one is useful, especially if you have to
work with a compiler that warns about unused
parameters.
The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.

The problem with your approach is that you have to do the same.
This extension doesn't leave C, as it does not
alter the behaviour of any conforming program.

Jul 24 '07 #16
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:58:13 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
Hi

I am considering extending the lcc-win32 compiler to accept
int fn(int a, int b,double)
{
// body of the function
}

This allows the programmer to specify that the third
parameter is not used within the function's body.

Does anyone here see a problem with this extension?

jacob
It's uglier, but the gcc attribute syntax allows you to
mark parameters as unused, and can be used portably.
For example one could have

#ifdef __GNUC__
# define UNUSED __attribute__ ((unused))
#else
# define UNUSED
#endif
Jul 24 '07 #17
Old Wolf <ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:
Well, what construct is absolutely necessary ?
ITYM "extension", obviously variable declarations and other such
constructs are not optional.
This one is useful, especially if you have to
work with a compiler that warns about unused
parameters.
One can either turn down the warning level or (as a former employer
did) write a macro that hushes the compiler when one knows what one is
doing.

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Jul 24 '07 #18
Serve Lau <as**@n.tkwrote:
I have never seen commercial software that uses a functional language. Do
you know an example?
Sure, doesn't all that COBOL code out there count for something?

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Jul 24 '07 #19
Serve Lau wrote, On 23/07/07 16:59:
"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
news:hq************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
>Malcolm McLean wrote, On 21/07/07 22:04:
>>"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote in message
news:46**********************@news.orange.fr.. .
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick a subset of C++ and use that?
>
The problem of that approach is that you have to leave C.

I am convinced that the OO approach is not the answer to
the complexity problems with software. If you use C++ you
have to swallow a large amount of OO (C++ style):

My view is that about 20% of programs are inherently object-oriented,
about 80% inherently procedural.
You've missed out the programs which are inherently functional...

I have never seen commercial software that uses a functional language. Do
you know an example?
There are all sorts of screwy things if you look hard enough, but I
can't point you at any specific example...
Or well, XSL comes close but its hardly a standalone language
Apart from lots of XSL work I've done.
>Then you've not worked in an environment with proper procedures, standards
and reviews. Where I used to work there were a number of things that were
enforced and it worked, to a lesser extent the same is true where I work
now.

In my experience and from what I hear from other programmers its very very
hard to get programmers to agree on something. What kind of companies are
those?
The first is a company that would hold reviews and the code would be
rejected at review if it did not meet the standards. Actually, I
effectively rejected a design at review once by refusing to accept that
the answer was "yes" to one of the standard questions :-) It was a
company in the defence industry.

Where I currently work on certain projects you will just get complained
at by one of the senior people repeatedly until you give up. At least,
on some of the products you will.

There are a number of people like me who will accept restrictions and
standards even when we think there are better ways because we accept
that there is also a significant value in consistency.
--
Flash Gordon
Jul 24 '07 #20
On Jul 25, 3:33 am, Christopher Benson-Manica Old Wolf
<oldw...@inspire.net.nzwrote:
>
This one is useful, especially if you have to
work with a compiler that warns about unused
parameters.

One can either turn down the warning level
The warning is useful, for genuine situations.
or (as a former employer did) write a macro that
hushes the compiler when one knows what one is doing.
Which is more aesthetically pleasing:

int foo(int)
{
bar();
}

or

int foo(int unused)
{
NOT_USED(unused);
bar();
}

Jul 24 '07 #21
In article <f8**********@chessie.cirr.com>,
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@faeroes.freeshell.orgwrote:
>Serve Lau <as**@n.tkwrote:
>I have never seen commercial software that uses a functional language. Do
you know an example?

Sure, doesn't all that COBOL code out there count for something?
I would somehow be surprised to find that COBOL falls under the
classification that computer language geeks are talking about when they
say "functional language".
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
If you get 3 pages of warnings, it's all good, just a missing bracket
or something. But if the compiler prints 1 lone error and halts,
pray. Pray hard. --Snis Pilbor in comp.lang.c
Jul 25 '07 #22
Old Wolf <ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:
The warning is useful, for genuine situations.
Quite, I don't advocate turning it off.
Which is more aesthetically pleasing:
int foo(int)
{
bar();
}
or
int foo(int unused)
{
NOT_USED(unused);
bar();
}
The first, but since it's not legal C the question is academic. The
aesthetic improvement IMO doesn't justify a departure from the realms
of portability.

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Jul 25 '07 #23

"Christopher Benson-Manica" <at***@faeroes.freeshell.orgwrote in message
news:f8**********@chessie.cirr.com...
Serve Lau <as**@n.tkwrote:
>I have never seen commercial software that uses a functional language. Do
you know an example?

Sure, doesn't all that COBOL code out there count for something?
cobol is an imperative language
Jul 27 '07 #24
On Jul 27, 12:28 pm, "Serve Lau" <a...@n.tkwrote:
cobol is an imperative language
Um, so it is. Wikipedia fails again... (I'm still glad not to have
been a COBOL programmer.)

Jul 27 '07 #25
On 2007-07-27 19:15, C. Benson Manica <cb******@gmail.comwrote:
On Jul 27, 12:28 pm, "Serve Lau" <a...@n.tkwrote:
>cobol is an imperative language

Um, so it is. Wikipedia fails again...
Where on wikipedia did you read that cobol is a functional language?

hp

--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder.
| | | hj*@hjp.at |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
Jul 28 '07 #26

"Christopher Benson-Manica" <at***@otaku.freeshell.orgwrote in message
news:f8**********@chessie.cirr.com...
Old Wolf <ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:
>The warning is useful, for genuine situations.

Quite, I don't advocate turning it off.
>Which is more aesthetically pleasing:
> int foo(int)
{
bar();
}
>or
> int foo(int unused)
{
NOT_USED(unused);
bar();
}

The first, but since it's not legal C the question is academic. The
aesthetic improvement IMO doesn't justify a departure from the realms
of portability.
Also when writing C89 code it would have to look like this:

int foo(int unused)
{
int x;
float y;

UNUSED(unused);
bar(x, y);
}

This makes it even more ugly IMO because UNUSED doesnt have anything to do
with what the function does
Jul 28 '07 #27
[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:12:43 +0000, Dave Vandervies wrote:
I would somehow be surprised to find that COBOL falls under the
classification that computer language geeks are talking about when they
say "functional language".
Functional language (n): Anything other than BASIC or Malbolge. :)
Jul 29 '07 #28
Peter J. Holzer <hj*********@hjp.atwrote:
Where on wikipedia did you read that cobol is a functional language?
Nowhere, but it also didn't say what kind of language it *was*,
allowing my incorrect notion to stand. Wikipedia is not to blame for
me opening my mouth in the first place...

--
C. Benson Manica | I appreciate all corrections, polite or otherwise.
cbmanica(at)gmail.com |
----------------------| I do not currently read any posts posted through
sdf.lonestar.org | Google groups, due to rampant unchecked spam.
Jul 30 '07 #29
On Jul 29, 1:07 am, "Serve Lau" <a...@n.tkwrote:
Also when writing C89 code it would have to look like this:

int foo(int unused)
{
int x;
float y;

UNUSED(unused);
bar(x, y);
}

This makes it even more ugly IMO because UNUSED doesnt have
anything to do with what the function does
Not if UNUSED is a declaration, e.g. on one compiler I use
it is something like:
#define NOT_USED(x) volatile typeof(x) __unused_##x = x;

Jul 31 '07 #30

"Old Wolf" <ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote in message
news:11**********************@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
On Jul 29, 1:07 am, "Serve Lau" <a...@n.tkwrote:
>Also when writing C89 code it would have to look like this:

int foo(int unused)
{
int x;
float y;

UNUSED(unused);
bar(x, y);
}

This makes it even more ugly IMO because UNUSED doesnt have
anything to do with what the function does

Not if UNUSED is a declaration, e.g. on one compiler I use
it is something like:
#define NOT_USED(x) volatile typeof(x) __unused_##x = x;
But then when you want to compile it on another compiler that doesnt support
this extension you will have to move all the UNUSED macro's to the first
line of code. The only portable solution I see is (void)x; or maybe x = x;
but I'm guessing some compilers will generate warnings on that. And this
will always look ugly.
I worked on software once where this was a real issue. The software
implemented a scripting language embedded in html like asp and every
statement and expression would call a C interface function. So there were
hundred of these interface functions with always the same parameters but
almost all script statements didnt use one or more parameters.
When I compiled it I got over 2k warnings about unused parameters. So I took
a deep breath and a lot of drugs one day and went through the braindead
effort of adding an UNUSED macro in every interface function. But if I used
the example in your post I would have to move the hundreds of macro's when
switching compilers. And I dont want to get addicted to drugs :(
Jul 31 '07 #31
In article <0g************@spanky.localhost.net>,
Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrote:
>[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:12:43 +0000, Dave Vandervies wrote:
>I would somehow be surprised to find that COBOL falls under the
classification that computer language geeks are talking about when they
say "functional language".

Functional language (n): Anything other than BASIC or Malbolge. :)
INTERCAL?
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca

The pedants here will shout "int main(void)" but I'll just whisper it.
--Bob Wightman in comp.lang.c
Jul 31 '07 #32
In article <f8**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
Dave Vandervies <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.cawrote:
>>Functional language (n): Anything other than BASIC or Malbolge. :)
>INTERCAL?
Intercal is a dysfunctional language.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Jul 31 '07 #33
ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <f8**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
Dave Vandervies <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.cawrote:
>Functional language (n): Anything other than BASIC or Malbolge. :)
INTERCAL?

Intercal is a dysfunctional language.
Whereas Malbolge is a Disfunctional language.

Boom, boom.

Richard
Aug 2 '07 #34

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

5
by: Brad Tobin | last post by:
On a production database, there is a 2GB database, when I run sp_spaceused it indicates a very high quanity of unused space. The database has been shrunk & free space sent to the OS. Why is this...
15
by: Eirik | last post by:
This is a little function I wrote, inspired by the thread "Urgent HELP! required for Caesar Cipher PLEASE" $ cat /home/keisar/bin/c/ymse/rot13.h char rot13(char character) { int changed;...
11
by: Michael B Allen | last post by:
Is there a standard method for supressing warnings regarding unused parameters? I have a function that might be called hundreds of thousands of times that looks like this: const void *...
1
by: Michael B Allen | last post by:
Is it legit to not use arguments of a variable argument function? For example consider that printf here does not use arg if fi = 1. void foo(int fi, const char *arg) { const char *fmts = {...
12
by: zacks | last post by:
Suddenly, in a VB2005 project I am working on, several variables show up in the list of warnings are being unused local variables. But they all are. Several of them are the ex variable used in a...
9
by: ThazKool | last post by:
I am just wondering if all the methods that are never called upon during a programs execution are removed when optimizing. For example you have: class FooA { void a(); ... void z(); }
0
by: Steven Bethard | last post by:
I have an optparse-like module and though I have a full unittest-style suite of tests for it, I'd also like to be able to run doctest on the documentation to make sure my examples all work. ...
13
by: Rex Mottram | last post by:
I'm using an API which does a lot of callbacks. In classic callback style, each routine provides a void * pointer to carry user-defined data. Sometimes, however, the user-defined pointer is not...
1
by: dissectcode | last post by:
I am trying to learn how to use the attribute unused so I created a little test program. Can you please tell me what is wrong? I get syntax errors "before attribute" and "before (" (sometimes). ...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.