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

santosh <santosh.k83@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Richard wrote:

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?

Er no. It was the crux of anything as far as I was concerned. If it was
important enough to you, *you* should have replied promptly to him,
instead of correcting third-party replies.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The ONLY correction I made
was the original assertion from RH.


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.

But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo.

Err, I know. So what? it was not ME who mentioned compilers.


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-

Neither was it me. So it begs the point - why are you making a big fuss
over *my* reply instead of answering directly to Robbie Hatley, perhaps
along the lines of:

It was not a "big fuss". I pointed out you did not need to point out RH's
error was a genuine error. What other types are there?

This is getting silly.

The bottom line is this : if you want to correct someone do it properly
without the smart arse stuff. And "you" doesn't mean "you Santosh".

If someone makes a mistake it doesn't need Tonto to come riding into
town explaining that it was "an honest mistake".

And if you do try to be a smart arse about basic logic expressions then
don't start telling people their development tools are broken when you
do not have a clue and have not verified it under your OWN tools.

Simple really.

I am at a loss as to why you keep promoting thise thread.

.

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 not ... Therefore Robbie Hatley took your statement as correcting a ...
    (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 ... "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. ... There is no evil intent in my correction. ... What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point ... But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: How printf() works???????
    ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... There is no evil intent in my correction. ... What he said to you about your compiler is beside the ... But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo. ...
    (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)