ANNOUNCE ggets revised

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

Frank Silvermann wrote...

You are new to the C language, aren't you?

FWIW, many MS-DOS (and Windows?) compilers use ".obj" instead of
".o" for object files. So that comment just says that Frank is new
to the /Unix/ world. (His later comments about header files do make
me think he hasn't done a lot of C programming, too. I'm just being
pedantic here.)

-Arthur

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

The expansion of #include "ggets.h" refers to the identifier FILE;
the expansion of ggets(&line) refers to the identifer stdin. How
exactly do you expect the compiler to resolve these identifiers
without a "#include <stdio.h>"?

(You also have a missing right parenthesis, corrected below).
.... snip ...

Adding a "#include <stdio.h>" to the top of tmp.c corrects the
problem, but the #include <stdio.h>" should be in "ggets.h".

You (plural) have convinced me. I will try to make the change the
next time I revise it. However I didn't alter ggets.h at all this
time, so there is no confusion with the replacement code.

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer wrote:
.... snip ...

There exists no ggets.o file in whatever I unzipped. One is left to
believe that '.o' is a typo or an intermediate file during
compiling-linking.

The .o file (or possibly .obj on some systems, or even something
else) is the result of compiling the .c file to system dependant
object code, which can then be linked into whatever other programs
you like without recompiling ggets. It is relocatable linkable
object code.

 

[Randy Howard]

Richard Heathfield wrote

Randy Howard said:


That's allowed. From what I've seen so far of Mr Silvermann, I have the
impression that he's fairly new to C but far from dense.

Fair enough, but not knowing what a .o file is sort of makes
debating how to best link to C++ code, header file layout, etc.
somewhat pointless.

 

[Randy Howard]

Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote
(in article

FWIW, many MS-DOS (and Windows?) compilers use ".obj" instead of
".o" for object files. So that comment just says that Frank is new
to the /Unix/ world. (His later comments about header files do make
me think he hasn't done a lot of C programming, too. I'm just being
pedantic here.)

A fair point, I forgot about Windows and funky compilers. I try
to forget it at every opportunity.

Still, I find it difficult to imagine a lot of C programming
background and no exposure to .o before whatsoever. *shrug*

 

[Al Balmer]

Frank Silvermann wrote


You are new to the C language, aren't you?

The less than precise language doesn't help. One doesn't (or at least
I don't) usually speak of "compiling" an object file, and I would have
said ggets.c is a C module, not ggets.

 

[Richard Bos]

Richard Heathfield wrote


Fair enough, but not knowing what a .o file is sort of makes
debating how to best link to C++ code, header file layout, etc.
somewhat pointless.

Not all the world's a VAX^Tgcc compiler.

Richard