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:

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?

It's incredible that you have taken offence over just two extra words,
which I am sure you would not have done if the subject of those words
had been someone other than RJH.

Did you not notice that I had no issue with RH? What is wrong with you?
he made a mistake. I pointed it out. I explained in a later post why I
pointed it out as I did. Robbie came flying in telling me my compiler
was broken for some reason because HE DID NOT REA OR UNDERSTAND what RH
said. How this is MY issue I am not sure.


This is getting silly.

"Indeed"

Funny!


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".

I'm glad to see that you have finally brought up your grievance with
Robbie Hatley's comments to you, to his notice, albeit through a reply
to me.

I dont give a monkeys unclue whether you are happy or not to be
honest. I dont have a clue why you are pursuing this. A thread is a
thread for a reason. One doesn't have to respond to each and every post.


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

Again, I crave your forgiveness for being stupid enough to post
something about RJH without getting your gracious approval.

Huh? You don't need my approval. I never said you did. Same as RH never
needed you explaining he had made a mistake. I know he had made a
mistake. He knows he made a mistake. A "genuine" mistake no
less. ..... All you had to do to HELP rather than be a toady was to say
to Robbie "actually you wrong. Richard spotted a mistake in RHs
explanation". We dont need you rubbing up against RHs leg and telling us
in details how RH made a "genuine reversal" or whatever slippery terms
you used.


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.

I'm glad to see that you have finally brought up your grievance with
Robbie Hatley's comments to you, to his notice, albeit through a reply
to me.

What are you talking about?


Simple really.

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

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

Yet it is you who keeps harping on. I am merely trying to respond with
some kind of meaning to your nonsensical rants.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How printf() works???????
    ... Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... What he said to you about your compiler is beside the ... Robbie came flying in telling me my ...
    (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 not ... Therefore Robbie Hatley took your statement as correcting a ...
    (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. ... 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)