Re: function conversion
- From: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:14:37 +0100
xdevel <xdevel1999@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 2 Lug, 18:43, Keith Thompson <k...@xxxxxxx> wrote:<snip>
xdevel <xdevel1...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Yes, but I wish to know if there are standard "one-to-one" functions.
I read that i.e. itoa is not!
No.
You can see all the functions in the standard C library by reading the
standard; search for "n1124.pdf" to see the latest draft.
NOTE:
<the rest snipped>(Please don't quote signatures; trim quoted material to what's
necessary for your response to make sense.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@xxxxxxx <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
You not only quoted the sig, you left the request asking you not to.
ok I have seen in the n1124 so my question is simply for which reasons
there aren't!
philosophical? technical?
Technical plus historical. Historically, the set evolved over time and not
breaking old code took precedence over "tidying up" the library.
The technical reason is that the set of values that C uses to
represent strings behaves very differently from the set of values it
has to represent numerical quantities. Hence, no real symmetry is
possible.
not important thanks to sprintf and other
solutions?
is not better to make all the possible functions to manage almost
every programming aspect?
No, then you'd get something as awful as C#.
may be, but obviously this is only a my "poor" opinion if a c (or c++)
programmer had more
standard library functions should be more productive (think to Java,
C# and so on).
Ah.
--
Ben.
.
- References:
- function conversion
- From: xdevel
- Re: function conversion
- From: Pietro Cerutti
- Re: function conversion
- From: xdevel
- Re: function conversion
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: function conversion
- From: xdevel
- function conversion
- Prev by Date: Newbie Question
- Next by Date: Re: stray"\26" in program
- Previous by thread: Re: function conversion
- Next by thread: Re: function conversion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|