Re: Goto still considered helpful

santosh wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
CBFalconer wrote:
[...]

You don't need all that confusing local declaration of
variables, etc. Consider:
int fcopy(char const *dst, char const *src) {
FILE *sf, *df;
int ch
if (sf = fopen(src, "r") { /* text files */
if (df = fopen(dst, "w") {
while (EOF != (ch = getc(sf))) putc(ch, df);
fclose(df);
}
fclose(sf);
}
return sf && df; /* non-zero for success */
}
which I consider more readable and safer than your version. :-)

This is good-weather code, and has nothing to do with "safe"
code in production.

Just on my first read, I think you need to consider:

- fopen failure
- getc failure
- putc failure

far more carefully.

I believe it already handles fopen failure correctly.

I agree about getc and putc.

The code snippet wont compile.

Yes, there are a couple of missing ')'s. Penalty for typing into
the newsreader. The above errors (apart from putc) already force
function termination.

--
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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Goto still considered helpful
    ... int fcopy(char const *dst, char const *src) { ... I believe it already handles fopen failure correctly. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Goto still considered helpful
    ... int fcopy(char const *dst, char const *src) { ... I believe it already handles fopen failure correctly. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Goto still considered helpful
    ... int fcopy(char const *dst, char const *src) { ... I believe it already handles fopen failure correctly. ... 'sf' will be NULL on the first fopen failure, ...
    (comp.lang.c)