Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: "Robert Gamble" <rgamble99@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Jun 2005 16:31:39 -0700
Keith Thompson wrote:
> Robert Gamble <rgamble99@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 17:12:39 +0200, Emmanuel Delahaye wrote:
> [...]
> >> strings are not mutable...
> >
> > Psst: string _literals_ are not mutable.
>
> Psst: Attempting to modify a string literal invokes undefined
> behavior. One way that undefined behavior can be manifested is that
> the string literal can be modified.
I thought about clarifying that but decided not to assuming that the
"without invoking undefined behavior" part was implied and trying not
to be too pedantic as I know what Emmanuel meant ;)
> Saying that string literals are not mutable could imply that it's an
> error that the implementation will catch. It might, or it might not.
I agree, bad decision on my part.
Robert Gamble
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: Emmanuel Delahaye
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- References:
- why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: baumann@pan
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: Emmanuel Delahaye
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: Robert Gamble
- Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- From: Keith Thompson
- why debug step by step, it s ok
- Prev by Date: Re: sscanf and int64 in Win32 and Unix - different results?
- Next by Date: Re: double pointers
- Previous by thread: Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- Next by thread: Re: why debug step by step, it s ok
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|