Re: How printf() works???????

Richard wrote:

santosh <santosh.k83@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Richard wrote:
santosh <santosh.k83@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Robbie Hatley wrote:
"Richard" <devr_@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

<snip>

x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're
false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x
is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.

It won't actually.

How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.

The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There
is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm
his "mistake" is very strange.

Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
understand your correction.

So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your mind?

He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his notice.
What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point and did not
strike me as being important enough to comment on.

he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he
never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing
compiler.

OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling OP's
code (which would require some completion to make it compilable) would
do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.

So in this case debating about his compiler and your compiler are
irrelevant.

It's really simple:

1. RJH made a *genuine* mistake.
2. You made a *genuine* correction to his mistake.
3. Robbie Hatley misread RJH's statement so that he read what RJH had
meant to say, not what he wrote.
4. Therefore Robbie Hatley took your statement as correcting a (to him)
correct statement.
5. I pointed out to Robbie Hatley that he misunderstood your correction
because he had misread RJH's erroneous statement.
6. Robbie Hatley acknowledged his misreading and we thought everything
was done and dusted, but...
7. You have taken exception with my *well* *intentioned* correction of
Robbie Hatley's misunderstanding, saying that I should have instead
flamed him for a comment that was essentially irrelevant and beside the
point, and one that was moreover, aimed at you.
8. You have also responded (at least) twice to RJH about this whole mess
including also a tedious recap of your well known opinions about this
group.
9. Surprisingly, you have not yet responded to Robbie Hatley, the poster
who has apparently offended you with his remarks about your compiler,
instead choosing to snipe at posters whose only intention was to clear
up the misunderstanding that started this subthread and thus to get it
closed.

Possibly you should inform Robbie to be
less quick to tell people their compilers are broken and that they
should get a new one?

He misread RJH's erroneous sentence. Why blame him for it?

You've gone to the dark side Santosh.

Mind explaining what you mean by this?

I "blame" him for nothing. I am
merely pointing out that one should know what one is talking about
before slamming other posters and insulting their compiler ..... In
this case he didn't bother to, or was unable to, verify my statement.

He (Robbie Hatley) did not bother to verify your statement for the
simple fact that he thought you were obviously wrong, since you were
apparently refuting a 100% correct statement by RJH. He missed the fact
that he had misread RJH mistake.

This sometimes happens. It's unfortunate and the whole subthread could
have closed down with my reply to Robbie Hatley and his response to me,
but now we are having a vigorous mud-slinging contest going on.

Regardless of that he started on about standard C and my compiler
being broken. I didn't even need to compile anything to see the
obvious mistake that Heathfield made. See other post for reasons not
to harp on about what that mistake was - it was abundantly clear to
any C programmer.

Yes, but Robbie Hatley misread it. Which is what I pointed out to him,
carefully ignoring his other statement about your compiler since that
was not relevant, either to me or to this subthread.

Yes it was a "mistake" but one worth pointing out as
RH had gone to great lengths to explain the boolean nature of the
expression only to get it 180% wrong : a slip of course. I don't
honestly believe that RH thinks that 1<30 returns 0 for example. hence
there was no malevolence, no crowing in my reply. Merely "incorrect"
or there abouts.

Where did I imply that there was malevolence or crowing in your reply?

Your need to jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.

*sigh* Once more:

I did _not_ jump to RJH's defence. I jumped in to correct Robbie
Hatley's mistake. Can you make out the difference, or are you far too
biased against RJH that you see a correction to a post aimed at a post
that was a correction to a post by RJH, as a defence of RJH?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How printf() works???????
    ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... is no evil intent in my correction. ... What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point and did ... "Hey Robbie, you are an idiot to have said that my compiler is not good ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: How printf() works???????
    ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... is no evil intent in my correction. ... What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point and did not ... I never mentioned YOUR correction of Robbie. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: How printf() works???????
    ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... is no evil intent in my correction. ... What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point and did ... But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: #define and (brackets)
    ... If I make a mistake, ... if the compiler knows enough to tell me ... due to some implicit type conversion say, then I define that conversion as ... That's automatic bug detection at compile time. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.language)
  • Re: How printf() works???????
    ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point ... RHs whole reply was based on explaining the OPs code. ... fuss over *my* reply instead of answering directly to Robbie Hatley, ...
    (comp.lang.c)