Some Questions.

[Martin Ambuhl]

GeorgeRXZ wrote:
[...]

Mr. Richard Heathfield. thanks for your feedback. But My questions
remained unanswered I don't need remark on my source codes (good or
bad).

I expect you to give answers of my four Questions.

[...]

Neither Mr. Richard Heathfield nor any others posting here do so as your
employee or slave. Your imperious expectations are rude and insulting.
We expect you to be civil.

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

C is case sensitive.

So what? Conio.h isn't part of Standard C, no matter which of it's
characters are written in what case. And in Windows/DOS it doesn't matter at
all, as it's filesystem (FAT as well as NFTS) is case insensitiv.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Keith Thompson]

C has no io, no screen, no keyboard etc it has no registers,
interrupts or hardware. Therefore virtually all C compiler have
extensions to the language or the library to cater for the environment
they are aimed at.

For some environments it is impossible to write a sensible or
efficient program using purely standard C

It depends on what you're trying to do. There are plenty of things
you can do in portable, or even strictly conforming, C, starting with
"Hello, world". But yes, there are plenty of things for which you
need to use non-standard extensions.

The above assumes a hosted implemention. It's likely true that most C
programming these days is done on standalone implementations for
embedded systems, but most beginning C programmers, like the OP, are
unlikely to see anything other than a hosted implementation.

[...]

 

[Kenny McCormack]

So what? Conio.h isn't part of Standard C, no matter which of it's
characters are written in what case. And in Windows/DOS it doesn't matter at
all, as it's filesystem (FAT as well as NFTS) is case insensitiv.

And, last I heard, the sun is still rising in the east, and Francisco
Franco is still dead.

Richard's point is that conio does exist and anyone who says otherwise
is clearly indulging their fantasies. The issue is that the nutbars of
this NG like to equate "off topic in clc" with "does not exist".

The "case" issue is a red herring (as you point out), but is the sort of
thing that the nutbars like to latch onto.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Kenneth Brody said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[... conio.h ...]

Unfortunately, these interfaces are not standardised, so even something
as simple as clearing the screen will differ between implementations.
For example, with Borland you call clrscr, whereas in early Microsoft
implementations you call something like _gclearscreen - although I could
easily be misremembering the precise function name.

<mega_OT>

Under Windows, Microsoft's documentation lists no "clear screen"
function.

I stand by my original statement about early Microsoft implementations. If
need be, I'll look it up in an ancient manual.

<snip>

 

[Walter Roberson]

Are you being purposely obstructive again? conio does exist. as does
curses. Why would he write his own?

Did Richard Heathfield say that conio does not exist? Or did he say
that "C doesn't define Conio.h" ?

I could write, "C doesn't define TwoSkeletonsLaughing.h. If you want
one, write your own." Would you interpret that as me saying
that "In the entire world, no-one has ever created a C include file named
TwoSkeletonsLaughing.h" ? For me to make an assertion about what
everyone in the entire world has ever done would clearly be misplaced,
as I could not possibly have that information. But I *do* have a
complete copy of ANSI X3.159-1989 only inches from my hands, and
I -can- reasonably make assertions about what is or is not defined
there.

 

[Default User]

Newsbeitrag news:[email protected]...
So what? Conio.h isn't part of Standard C,

Please don't feed the troll.




Brian

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Please don't feed the troll.

Thank you for feeding me. Your contribution is duly noted.

 

[Ernie Wright]

Kenneth Brody said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[... conio.h ...]

Unfortunately, these interfaces are not standardised, so even something
as simple as clearing the screen will differ between implementations.
For example, with Borland you call clrscr, whereas in early Microsoft
implementations you call something like _gclearscreen - although I could
easily be misremembering the precise function name.

Close enough. The call was

_clearscreen( _GCLEARSCREEN );

This was declared in graph.h. In Microsoft's compilers, conio.h was
limited to a fairly small set of console functions like getch() and
kbhit().

I stand by my original statement about early Microsoft implementations. If
need be, I'll look it up in an ancient manual.

These aren't mutually exclusive statements. As those of us of a certain
age know, Windows != early Microsoft implementations.

And of course the original point remains: these interfaces were *never*
standardized, even in the weaker sense of being the same among different
vendors on the same platform.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Kenneth Brody said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[... conio.h ...]

Unfortunately, these interfaces are not standardised, so even something
as simple as clearing the screen will differ between implementations.
For example, with Borland you call clrscr, whereas in early Microsoft
implementations you call something like _gclearscreen - although I could
easily be misremembering the precise function name.

<mega_OT>

Under Windows, Microsoft's documentation lists no "clear screen"
function.

I stand by my original statement about early Microsoft implementations. If
need be, I'll look it up in an ancient manual.

In early microsoft implementations, if you wanted to clear the screen,
you called some video bios function, or jumped to FFFF:FF00. This
cleared the screen, albeit only brielfy..
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Ernie Wright said:

Close enough. The call was

_clearscreen( _GCLEARSCREEN );

Dat der bunny. Thanks, Ernie.

<snip>

 

[jaysome]

Please don't feed the troll.

In other words:

A) Kenny is a troll.
B) A troll is someone who intentionally posts controversial or
contrary messages in an on-line community with the intention of
baiting users into an argumentative response.
C) Therefore Kenny's post had the intention of baiting users into an
argumentative response.

Logic 101 tells me there is something wrong with this argument. Even
trolls can sometimes be correct in pointing out that the Emperor is
wearing no clothes. Nevertheless, KILL(file) the trolls.

Regards
--
jay

"No product of human intellect comes out right the first time. We
rewrite sentences, rip out knitting stitches, replant gardens, remodel
houses, and repair bridges. Why should software be any different?"

(RTCA/DO-248A, Second Annual Report for Clarification of DO-178B
"Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment
Certification". RTCA, Inc., Washington, D. C., September 13, 2000.)

 

[Kenneth Brody]

Kenneth Brody said: [...]

Under Windows, Microsoft's documentation lists no "clear screen"
function.

I stand by my original statement about early Microsoft implementations. If
need be, I'll look it up in an ancient manual.

These aren't mutually exclusive statements. As those of us of a certain
age know, Windows != early Microsoft implementations.

Well, I missed the "early" in Richard's post. (BTW, I'm of that
"certain age" as well. Perhaps older. My first exposure to MS
Windows was the pre-beta copies of 1.0 that we had. My first
exposure to C was on CP/M a couple of years earlier.)

And of course the original point remains: these interfaces were *never*
standardized, even in the weaker sense of being the same among different
vendors on the same platform.

Or even the same vendor, on different versions of the same platform.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:[email protected]>

 

[Kenneth Brody]

Mark McIntyre wrote:
[...]

In early microsoft implementations, if you wanted to clear the screen,
you called some video bios function, or jumped to FFFF:FF00. This
cleared the screen, albeit only brielfy..

<OT>

ITYM "F000:FFF0", or "FFFF:0000".

Of course, such a function pointer would need to be declared using
"void (*pointer)(void)", as it didn't return a value.

</OT>

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:[email protected]>

 

[John Bode]

Hi Friends,

I have some questions related to C Language.

1> What is the difference between the standard C language and Non
standard C language ?

Standard C is the language defined by a standards body (ISO/IEC JTC1/
SC22/WG14). Non-standard C refers to vendor- or platform-specific
extensions to the language (additional keywords, headers, libraries,
etc.). All conforming compilers recognize standard C.

2> which is better C Lanugage, C under Linux/ Unix or C under
windows/ DOS ?

The C *language* is the same for each of those platforms -- the
differences come in the platform-specific extensions to the language.
And in that case, it's a wash; one is no better or worse than the
other.

3> Under Linux Platform why Conio.h and and many other header files
are not available in C Language Compiler ?

Because those are extensions specific to DOS/Windows. The core C
language does not have any built in support for display management
(including bitmap graphics), sound, networking, device input (such as
the keyboard), etc., so each vendor has their own set of extensions to
support that. Under linux, the closest equivalent to conio is curses.

4> Which is latest version of C ? and who makes changes to the
language Syntax and Add new features or upgrade the language ?

The latest version is C99, and the standards body I mentioned above is
responsible.

I have written some programs in C language and have uploaded the
source codes to my website.

http://zsoftwares.googlepages.com/CPrograms.htmlhttp://zsoftwares.googlepages.com/DSFPrograms.htm

I have used Turboc compiler (borland International) for writing and
executing all source programs in C on above website. All source code
run properly and gives output under Windows / DOS platform.( Turboc
Compiler). But these programs don't run on compiler of linux os why
this happens ?

Because you are using headers and functions specific to DOS/Windows
(conio.h, clrscr, etc.). To get this to run on linux, you would have
to replace conio.h and all the associated calls with a different
header (curses.h, clear, etc.)

By the way, use "int main(void)" instead of "void main()". main() is
supposed to return int.

[I am student of Computer Engg.]
you can mail me at (e-mail address removed)

GEOrgE

 

[GeorgeRXZ]

GeorgeRXZ wrote:

[...]

Mr. Richard Heathfield. thanks for your feedback. But My questions
remained unanswered I don't need remark on my source codes (good or
bad).

I expect you to give answers of my four Questions.

[...]

Neither Mr. Richard Heathfield nor any others posting here do so as your
employee or slave. Your imperious expectations are rude and insulting.
We expect you to be civil.

My intention was not to order anybody. I was just requesting...if
unknowingly your feelings are hurt.
Please pardon me.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

Richard's point is that conio does exist

Who said otherwise? The statement - quote above - was that C doesn't
define conio.h. It doesn't. That doesn't mean *you* can't create such a
header, or that your implementation can't - it just means exactly what it
says: C doesn't define it.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

C has no io

Then what, pray tell, are getchar, putchar, and their ilk used for?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

[snips]

Richard's point is that conio does exist

Who said otherwise? The statement - quote above - was that C doesn't
define conio.h. It doesn't. That doesn't mean *you* can't create such a
header, or that your implementation can't - it just means exactly what it
says: C doesn't define it.

And Francisco Franco is still dead.

The point (and a very important point it is) is that many of the
regulars (e.g., CBF), not all of them, but some of them, have explicitly
stated both that "If it isn't in the C standard, it doesn't exist" (1) and
"<x> is not C" (2) (where <x> is something not mentioned in the standard).

Both statements ((1) and (2) above) are obviously bogus, but we, those
of us in the know, know what it means and accept it as poetic license.
But, and this is another important point, newbies don't know how to take
it, and the whole things has a rather unpleasant smell.

Note also that you sometimes see the wording "... written (entirely) in
ISO C ..." (most recently, I believe, in posts from Heathfield), and
whenever I see this wording, I think "but, but, that's redundant...
According to some of the nutbars here, there's no other kind."

 

[Richard]

[snips]

C doesn't define Conio.h. If you want one, write your own.

Richard's point is that conio does exist

Who said otherwise? The statement - quote above - was that C doesn't
define conio.h. It doesn't. That doesn't mean *you* can't create such a
header, or that your implementation can't - it just means exactly what it
says: C doesn't define it.

And Francisco Franco is still dead.

The point (and a very important point it is) is that many of the
regulars (e.g., CBF), not all of them, but some of them, have
explicitly

I don't know why he posts. Really. He is wrong more often than not and
the real experts, including Heathfield and Keith, seem to put up with him
as one might with a favourite monkey boy.

stated both that "If it isn't in the C standard, it doesn't exist" (1) and
"<x> is not C" (2) (where <x> is something not mentioned in the standard).

Both statements ((1) and (2) above) are obviously bogus, but we, those
of us in the know, know what it means and accept it as poetic license.
But, and this is another important point, newbies don't know how to take
it, and the whole things has a rather unpleasant smell.

Bingo.

I summarised this recently by pointing out that the errors were in C
syntax and use of a "standard" function/declaration and NOT in the call
to a "non standard function". According to the egos and word game
masters that take delight in "thats not C"'ing it this NG then
99.99999999999999999999999% of real world C where people are having
issues would be off topic. Not so. It is possible to build your own
libraries, use them, maintain them and NOT need to post their source
here in order to find an issue higher up the call hierarchy.

Note also that you sometimes see the wording "... written (entirely) in
ISO C ..." (most recently, I believe, in posts from Heathfield), and
whenever I see this wording, I think "but, but, that's redundant...
According to some of the nutbars here, there's no other kind."

Wrong .....

The Ansi C standard (mostly used here since you know who hates c99)
was adopted by ISO.

So it is MORE correct to say "100% Ansi C" ... in order to show off your
credentials and historical knowledge of the standards.....