473,324 Members | 2,417 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,324 software developers and data experts.

tryick use of sizeof again[Explaination Wanted]

char ch='a';

int v=sizeof ++ch;

cout<<ch<<endl;// output: 'a'

why not 'b'?
thanks

Sep 14 '07
72 2959
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
"christian.bau" wrote:
"Charlie Gordon" <n...@chqrlie.orgwrote:
Why be unnecessarily obtuse when the issue is not C++ specific.
How do you know it is not C++ specific? For example, after

char c - '0';
c += sizeof ('0');

what is the value stored in c? There are subtle differences
between the sizeof operator in C and C++, and someone knowing
absolutely everything about C but nothing about C++ would most
likely not know the right answer to the problem I wrote.

Why did you snip away the expression that triggered the query?
Because it's immaterial to his point, which is that _all_ such
expressions _may_ be different in C++, and only comp.lang.c++ can tell
you for certain.
I.e:
> int v = sizeof ++ch;

which has the same answer in C and C++ (I think),
Precisely. _You think_. comp.lang.c++ would _know_.

Richard
Sep 17 '07 #51
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
[...]
>I.e:
>> int v = sizeof ++ch;

which has the same answer in C and C++ (I think),

Precisely. _You think_. comp.lang.c++ would _know_.
You're assuming that the folks in comp.lang.c++ know enough about C to
be sure about such things. (That may be an accurate assumption.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Sep 17 '07 #52
Richard Bos wrote:
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
.... snip ...
>>
>> int v = sizeof ++ch;

which has the same answer in C and C++ (I think),

Precisely. _You think_. comp.lang.c++ would _know_.
No, they wouldn't. In general their knowledge of C is probably
similar to my knowledge of C++ - i.e. fair, but not comprehensive.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sep 17 '07 #53
CBFalconer wrote, On 17/09/07 08:29:
Richard Bos wrote:
>CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
... snip ...
>>>>> int v = sizeof ++ch;
which has the same answer in C and C++ (I think),
Precisely. _You think_. comp.lang.c++ would _know_.

No, they wouldn't. In general their knowledge of C is probably
similar to my knowledge of C++ - i.e. fair, but not comprehensive.
I think the point is they would _know_ the behaviour in C++. After all,
the original code _was_ C++ because it used C++ specific features on
another line.
--
Flash Gordon
Sep 17 '07 #54
[snips]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:31:53 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:
Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int) in C (how
stupid and counter-intuitive!)
There were legitimate reasons for this, however.
someone knowing absolutely everything about C but nothing about C++ would
fit my definition of obtuse perfectly.
Actually, that'd fit my definition of "C programmer who hasn't learned C++."
Sep 17 '07 #55
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:31:53 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:

[snips]
>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int)
in C (how stupid and counter-intuitive!)

There were legitimate reasons for this, however.
>someone knowing absolutely everything about C but nothing about
C++ would fit my definition of obtuse perfectly.

Actually, that'd fit my definition of "C programmer who hasn't
learned C++."
LOL. Accurate.

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sep 17 '07 #56
Flash Gordon wrote:
CBFalconer wrote, On 17/09/07 08:29:
>Richard Bos wrote:
>>CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
... snip ...
>>>>>> int v = sizeof ++ch;

which has the same answer in C and C++ (I think),

Precisely. _You think_. comp.lang.c++ would _know_.

No, they wouldn't. In general their knowledge of C is probably
similar to my knowledge of C++ - i.e. fair, but not comprehensive.

I think the point is they would _know_ the behaviour in C++. After
all, the original code _was_ C++ because it used C++ specific
features on another line.
Which (I think) is just what I said. An answer requires knowledge
of both systems.

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sep 17 '07 #57
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:45:22 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:31:53 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:

[snips]
>>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int)
in C (how stupid and counter-intuitive!)

There were legitimate reasons for this, however.
>>someone knowing absolutely everything about C but nothing about
C++ would fit my definition of obtuse perfectly.

Actually, that'd fit my definition of "C programmer who hasn't
learned C++."

LOL. Accurate.
He do seem to think that learning C magically imparts a deep knowledge of
C++, don't he?

Weird stuff.
Sep 17 '07 #58
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
Flash Gordon wrote:
CBFalconer wrote, On 17/09/07 08:29:
Richard Bos wrote:
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:

... snip ...

> int v = sizeof ++ch;

which has the same answer in C and C++ (I think),

Precisely. _You think_. comp.lang.c++ would _know_.

No, they wouldn't. In general their knowledge of C is probably
similar to my knowledge of C++ - i.e. fair, but not comprehensive.
I think the point is they would _know_ the behaviour in C++. After
all, the original code _was_ C++ because it used C++ specific
features on another line.

Which (I think) is just what I said. An answer requires knowledge
of both systems.
No, it requires knowledge of C++. It was a question about the behaviour
of the posted code, which was C++ code; it was not a question about the
potential difference in behaviour between that code and similar C code.

Richard
Sep 18 '07 #59
Richard Bos wrote, On 18/09/07 07:13:
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Flash Gordon wrote:
>>CBFalconer wrote, On 17/09/07 08:29:
Richard Bos wrote:
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
>
... snip ...

>>>> int v = sizeof ++ch;
>which has the same answer in C and C++ (I think),
Precisely. _You think_. comp.lang.c++ would _know_.
No, they wouldn't. In general their knowledge of C is probably
similar to my knowledge of C++ - i.e. fair, but not comprehensive.
I think the point is they would _know_ the behaviour in C++. After
all, the original code _was_ C++ because it used C++ specific
features on another line.
Which (I think) is just what I said. An answer requires knowledge
of both systems.

No, it requires knowledge of C++. It was a question about the behaviour
of the posted code, which was C++ code; it was not a question about the
potential difference in behaviour between that code and similar C code.
Yes, I meant what Richard has just posted.
--
Flash Gordon
Sep 18 '07 #60
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kb********@gmail.coma écrit dans le message de news:
ak************@spanky.localhost.net...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:45:22 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:
>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:31:53 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:

[snips]

Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int)
in C (how stupid and counter-intuitive!)

There were legitimate reasons for this, however.

someone knowing absolutely everything about C but nothing about
C++ would fit my definition of obtuse perfectly.

Actually, that'd fit my definition of "C programmer who hasn't
learned C++."

LOL. Accurate.

He do seem to think that learning C magically imparts a deep knowledge of
C++, don't he?

Weird stuff.
Not at all !

Knowing absolutely everything about C (I wonder who on earth would dare
pretend that), and having never even peeked at C++ shows a weird but
absolute will of self-confinement. That may not be the exact current
meaning of obtuse, but it shows both close- and strong-mindedness, which
together hint at blunt lack of intelligence.

Come on, most of us know enough C++ to have made up our minds about staying
with C for a number of applications where the latter is inappropriate. We
may disagree on what these applications are, if not all. But making this
choice out of sheer prejudice is being obtuse.

--
Chqrlie.
Sep 18 '07 #61
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kb********@gmail.coma écrit dans le message de news:
vs************@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:31:53 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:
>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int) in C
(how
stupid and counter-intuitive!)

There were legitimate reasons for this, however.
I could not find which.
The standard partly retreated on this issue, making sizeof(L'a') ==
sizeof(wchar_t)
Can you elaborate ?
>someone knowing absolutely everything about C but nothing about C++ would
fit my definition of obtuse perfectly.

Actually, that'd fit my definition of "C programmer who hasn't learned
C++."
Not really: C programmer is much more restrictive than "someone knowing
absolutely everything about C". For such a person to not know anything
about C++ requires a strong will of not knowing.

--
Chqrlie.
Sep 18 '07 #62
Charlie Gordon said:

<snip>
Knowing absolutely everything about C (I wonder who on earth would dare
pretend that), and having never even peeked at C++ shows a weird but
absolute will of self-confinement. That may not be the exact current
meaning of obtuse, but it shows both close- and strong-mindedness, which
together hint at blunt lack of intelligence.
I'd just like to add my two cents here, if I may.

On those rare occasions when I feel obliged to say something about C++ in
this group, I almost invariably qualify it with protestations of ignorance
of the finer details of that language.

This is *not* because I haven't ever studied C++. I have. And I have
written a great many programs in C++ over the years, and I'm perfectly
sure that I know more about C++ than almost anyone I've ever met in person
(the most notable exception I can think of is Sarah Thompson, last heard
of working at NASA, but there are a few others about the place, too).

In fact, I think it would be fair to say that I have about as deep and
thorough a knowledge of C++ as I had of C when I started using this
newsgroup regularly about eight or nine years ago.

Those who were here eight or nine years ago will no doubt recall just how
flawed that knowledge was. I have no reason to believe that my current C++
knowledge is any less flawed now than my C knowledge was then, which is
why I always hedge my statements about C++ with riders and qualifiers.

That does not mean I am wholly ignorant of C++, of course. It just means
that I don't want people taking my word for it on a C++ matter when it may
turn out that they know more about it than I do.

--
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
Sep 18 '07 #63
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalida écrit dans le message de news:
_t******************************@bt.com...
Charlie Gordon said:

<snip>
>Knowing absolutely everything about C (I wonder who on earth would dare
pretend that), and having never even peeked at C++ shows a weird but
absolute will of self-confinement. That may not be the exact current
meaning of obtuse, but it shows both close- and strong-mindedness, which
together hint at blunt lack of intelligence.

I'd just like to add my two cents here, if I may.

On those rare occasions when I feel obliged to say something about C++ in
this group, I almost invariably qualify it with protestations of ignorance
of the finer details of that language.

This is *not* because I haven't ever studied C++. I have. And I have
written a great many programs in C++ over the years, and I'm perfectly
sure that I know more about C++ than almost anyone I've ever met in person
(the most notable exception I can think of is Sarah Thompson, last heard
of working at NASA, but there are a few others about the place, too).

In fact, I think it would be fair to say that I have about as deep and
thorough a knowledge of C++ as I had of C when I started using this
newsgroup regularly about eight or nine years ago.

Those who were here eight or nine years ago will no doubt recall just how
flawed that knowledge was. I have no reason to believe that my current C++
knowledge is any less flawed now than my C knowledge was then, which is
why I always hedge my statements about C++ with riders and qualifiers.

That does not mean I am wholly ignorant of C++, of course. It just means
that I don't want people taking my word for it on a C++ matter when it may
turn out that they know more about it than I do.
Thank you for this clarification, I feel exactly the same.

--
Chqrlie.
Sep 18 '07 #64
[snips]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:18 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:
>>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int) in C
(how
stupid and counter-intuitive!)

There were legitimate reasons for this, however.

I could not find which.
The standard
Which standard? You can't even figure out, apparently, what language is
being discussed.
Sep 18 '07 #65
On 2007-09-18 17:01, Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrote:
[snips]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:18 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:
>>>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int) in C
(how
stupid and counter-intuitive!)

There were legitimate reasons for this, however.

I could not find which.
The standard

Which standard? You can't even figure out, apparently, what language is
being discussed.
Since the comment at the start of this subthread was from Charlie, he
doesn't have to figure out what language is being discussed, he knows
it. It is possible, though, that you didn't figure out which language
Charlie was talking about ...

hp

PS: I'd give long odds the language is C.

--
_ | 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"
Sep 18 '07 #66
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:15:11 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2007-09-18 17:01, Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrote:
>[snips]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:18 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:
>>>>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int) in C
(how
stupid and counter-intuitive!)

There were legitimate reasons for this, however.

I could not find which.
The standard

Which standard? You can't even figure out, apparently, what language is
being discussed.

Since the comment at the start of this subthread was from Charlie, he
doesn't have to figure out what language is being discussed, he knows
it. It is possible, though, that you didn't figure out which language
Charlie was talking about ...

hp

PS: I'd give long odds the language is C.
Which one - there's at least three to go with. :)
Sep 18 '07 #67
Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrites:
[snips]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:08:54 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:
>Knowing absolutely everything about C (I wonder who on earth would dare
pretend that), and having never even peeked at C++ shows a weird but
absolute will of self-confinement.

Oh? How about Pascal? Visual Basic? Haskell? Malbolge? Presumably if
one confines oneself to C without looking at these, one is similarly
self-confined, right?

After all, each is a language, separate and distinct from C - like
C++ is.
Are distinct things in your world only ever either the same or
different? Do distinct things ever have similarities and connections
between them? Can these similarities and connections ever vary by
degree?

I know Haskell simply because I am interested in that family of
languages and it's history. The relationship between C and C++ is, I
am sure, well known to you and its seems plausible to me that an
interest in one might be correlated to an interest in the other.

I am trying to find out, in part, if you really see the world in black
and white or if you just like to have a Barney (== a fight).

--
Ben.
Sep 19 '07 #68
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kb********@gmail.coma écrit dans le message de news:
mm************@spanky.localhost.net...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:15:11 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>On 2007-09-18 17:01, Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrote:
>>[snips]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:18 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:

>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int) in
>C
>(how
>stupid and counter-intuitive!)
>
There were legitimate reasons for this, however.

I could not find which.
The standard

Which standard? You can't even figure out, apparently, what language is
being discussed.

Since the comment at the start of this subthread was from Charlie, he
doesn't have to figure out what language is being discussed, he knows
it. It is possible, though, that you didn't figure out which language
Charlie was talking about ...

hp

PS: I'd give long odds the language is C.

Which one - there's at least three to go with. :)
All of "them" have the same definition of sizeof('a').

--
Chqrlie.
Sep 19 '07 #69
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kb********@gmail.coma écrit dans le message de news:
rr************@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:18 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:
>>>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int) in C
(how
stupid and counter-intuitive!)

There were legitimate reasons for this, however.

I could not find which.
The standard

Which standard? You can't even figure out, apparently, what language is
being discussed.
You are so amazingly gifted at playing stupid ;-)

If you followed the conversation, It is obvious from context that you
snipped that the only Standard I even mentionned is C99. It you know shy
sizeof('a') is the same as sizeof(int) in the C language, please enlighten
us! The choice made by the C++ folks makes so much more sense.

Also please tell us why you think the C99 standard defines sizeof(L'a') as
equal to sizeof(wchar_t).

Otherwise, you are just trolling and your posts lead nowhere,

--
Chqrlie.
Sep 19 '07 #70
On 2007-09-19 08:23, Charlie Gordon <ne**@chqrlie.orgwrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kb********@gmail.coma écrit dans le message de news:
rr************@spanky.localhost.net...
>On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:18 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:
>>>>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int)
in C (how stupid and counter-intuitive!)

There were legitimate reasons for this, however.
[...]
It you know shy sizeof('a') is the same as sizeof(int) in the C
language, please enlighten us!
You would have to ask dmr for a definitive answer, but it is consistent
with the integer promotion rules: Whenever an expression has an integer
type smaller than int, it is promoted to int or unsigned int,
respectively. In the case of a constant this promotion would be done by
the compiler anyway, so there is little use for integer constants of
smaller size. Consequently, there are no constants of type char or
short. Only int and long (and long long in C99) and their unsigned
brethren.

(K&R C didn't have float constants either - all floating point constants
were double)
The choice made by the C++ folks makes so much more sense.
C++ also has a good reason to make the distinction. In C it doesn't make
any difference except in programs deliberately written to show the
difference.

Also please tell us why you think the C99 standard defines sizeof(L'a') as
equal to sizeof(wchar_t).
Because the C89 standard did the same? It is a bit inconsistent - I
would have expected something like "a wide character constant has the
type which results from applying the integer promotion rules to type
wchar_t". But it really makes little difference, since even though the
constant may be shorter than int, the integer promotions are applied to
it, making it at least as wide as an int for every operation except
sizeof.

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"
Sep 20 '07 #71
"Peter J. Holzer" <hj*********@hjp.atwrites:
On 2007-09-20 22:21, Charlie Gordon <ne**@chqrlie.orgwrote:
>"Peter J. Holzer" <hj*********@hjp.ata écrit dans le message de news:
sl************************@zeno.hjp.at...
>>On 2007-09-19 08:23, Charlie Gordon <ne**@chqrlie.orgwrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kb********@gmail.coma crit dans le message de news:
rr************@spanky.localhost.net...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:18 +0200, Charlie Gordon wrote:
>
>>>Yeah right sizeof('a') == 1 in C++ and sizeof('a') == sizeof(int)
>>>in C (how stupid and counter-intuitive!)
>>>
>>There were legitimate reasons for this, however.
[...]
It you know shy sizeof('a') is the same as sizeof(int) in the C
language, please enlighten us!

You would have to ask dmr for a definitive answer, but it is consistent
with the integer promotion rules:
<snip>
>I don't buy your "promotional" argument. I think it must be related to
multi-character character constants that were allowed and used back in the
early C days, when people used to pack characters into ints.
<snip>
While I don't claim to know much about C compilers before the
mid-1980's, I doubt this would ever have worked. AFAIK a char was always
at least 8 bits on all C compilers, and while it is possible that a
multi-character constant used a special 6-bit-encoding instead of just
stuffing 8-bit-chars together, it seems a bit far-fetched.

Also, my copy of K&R I doesn't mention multi-character constants at all.
It's the German translation, though - can anybody check the
original?
My old K&R (1978) makes no reference to multi-character constants.
Many compilers supported them (I have even used then <blush>) but they
were always regarded non-standard (even before *the* standard) and
non-portable.

--
Ben.
Sep 21 '07 #72
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:28:26 -0700, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au>
wrote:
<snip: sizeof and VLAs>
I believe the evaluation clause in 6.5.3.4p2 is more for
cases like...

sizeof (int [nonconstexpr])

Since pointer arithmetic is required to work on VLAs,
such pointers (including those created by using the name
of a VLA) necessarily carry information about the VLAs
size, either directly or indirectly.
Not directly, because...
Consider...

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int foo()
{
return 1 + rand() % 10;
}

size_t bah(char (*vlap)[*])
this isn't allowed: 6.7.5.2p4.
{
return sizeof *vlap;
}

int main()
{
int vla[foo()];
printf("%zu\n", bah(&vla));
return 0;
}

The function foo() is only called once. A compiler that
calls foo() twice would be broken.
The definition must use a specific variable bound (!) like:
char* after (size_t n, int (*vlap)[n] )
{ return (char*) & vlap [1]; }

int main ()
{ int n, vla [n=foo()]; /* or int n = foo(), vla [n]; */
printf ("%d\n", (int) (after (n,&vla) - (char*)&vla) );
/* or HERE IN CALLER can use sizeof vla for bytes,
or sizeof vla / sizeof vla[0] for bound */
return 0; }

which indeed calls foo only once, but must pass the (resulting) bound
explicitly for the callee to know it.

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.net
Sep 30 '07 #73

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

Similar topics

10
by: goacross | last post by:
i found something tricky this morning. char *p="abc"; 1. char m=1;// m='b' 2. char n=sizeof('h'); // n=1; I guess the reason of 1is,
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
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: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
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.