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

santosh <santosh.k83@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

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.

Are you joking? It was the WHOLE crux of things. He informed me that if
my compiler did not agree with RH then I needed a new one.

What is it with you and apologising for other peoples mistakes?


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

Yes it was. RHs whole reply was based on explaining the OPs code.

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

I commented on RHs English response not the code. It was not me who
brought compilers into it-


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

It's really simple:

1. RJH made a *genuine* mistake.

All mistakes are "genuine". or are trying so suggest he makes mistakes
on purpose. What are you trying to say here?

2. You made a *genuine* correction to his mistake.

I made a correction. Nothing "genuine" about it. It was a correct
correction.

3. Robbie Hatley misread RJH's statement so that he read what RJH had
meant to say, not what he wrote.

He made a mistake. And your corrected him. No need for me to do so.

4. Therefore Robbie Hatley took your statement as correcting a (to him)
correct statement.

Because he was wrong. The "to him" bis the crux here. If you are going
to tell people that their compilers are fucked and they need new ones
then (a) ensure that compilable code was involved (it wasnt) and (b)
check you're right so you dont look like a total fool.

5. I pointed out to Robbie Hatley that he misunderstood your correction
because he had misread RJH's erroneous statement.

Fine .... And obvious to anyone.

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.

Rubbish. I never mentioned YOUR correction of Robbie. I mentioned your
saying this:

"Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure."

My point was it was a mistake. No being sure about it. Do you not
understand the subtle differences here?

8. You have also responded (at least) twice to RJH about this whole
mess

Politely.

including also a tedious recap of your well known opinions about this
group.

And you're rapidly reinforcing them. Which surprises me. As an infrquent
visitor I can assure you that your tone has taken on that of the
clique. A shame.

9. Surprisingly, you have not yet responded to Robbie Hatley, the
poster

Why should I? You already corrected him.

who has apparently offended you with his remarks about your compiler,

He hasn't offended me in the slightest. His reply was unnecessarily rude
IMO. No skin off my back. And all the more embarrassing for him since he
was wrong. Or should be that "genuinely mistaken" in your speak :-; ?

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.

You had no need to excuse RHs "mistake I am sure". It was simple enough
to say "No, RH was wrong there". had you wanted to clear anything up as
opposed to defend RH at all costs your reply would simply have been

"Sorry Robbie, but you are wrong. RH made a mistake there".

No need to add "genuine" or "reverse of what he meant" or ..... etc etc
etc.


.