Re: scanf behaviour
- From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:03:06 GMT
Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Keith Thompson said:
C's fflush() function doesn't *have* to follow the exact semantics of a
toilet.
May I quote you? :-)
You've already demonstrated that you can. In addition to that, you
certainly may (though it's a bit late for me to say otherwise).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@xxxxxxx <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.
.
- References:
- scanf behaviour
- From: stasgold
- Re: scanf behaviour
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: scanf behaviour
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: scanf behaviour
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: scanf behaviour
- From: stasgold
- Re: scanf behaviour
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: scanf behaviour
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: scanf behaviour
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: scanf behaviour
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: scanf behaviour
- From: Richard Heathfield
- scanf behaviour
- Prev by Date: Re: static memory allocation versus dynamic memory allocation
- Next by Date: Re: right prime numbers
- Previous by thread: Re: scanf behaviour
- Next by thread: Re: scanf behaviour
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|