From: James Colannino <james@colannino.org>
To: linux-c-programming@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Code critique: checking for syntax errors
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:47:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43D532D6.9050204@colannino.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43D35194.4050206@ajp-services.net>
Jesse Ruffin wrote:
> If you can at all manage it, and most times you can, put all of your
> variable declarations right at the beginning of the function. This also
> implies moving your debug statements below them as they will be compiled
> in sometime. Doing so will aid in portability to older, or more strict,
> compilers.
Do stricter and older compilers complain if variables aren't declared at
the beginning of the function?
> And try extra hard to avoid variable declarations in the loop
> definition, as this is often seen as an error by compilers unless you
> are using the C99 standard.
Actually, I was banking on the C99 standard (I guess perhaps it would
have been wise for me to say so when I posted the code.)
>
> Multiple locations:
> | if (ungetc(character, input) == NULL) {
>
> ungetc() returns an EOF on error[...]
You're right. I changed that :)
> C defines two values, EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE, that should be used
> for the exit() value. These will pass the proper value to the host
> environment. As that value may differ, you should use them to make your
> code as portable as possible.
I can understand EXIT_FAILURE, but why do all the C books tell you to
return 0 instead of EXIT_SUCCESS? I always thought that both return()
and exit() did the same basic thing, so I'm confused as to why a book
teaching how to write portable code would say to simply use 0 (that's
with return() and not exit().) I have implemented exit(EXIT_FAILURE)
instead of exit(1).
>
> Once again, I think that this is good code overall. It's good to see
> people being careful and using extra parenthesis and braces, rather than
> hunting down logic bugs caused by a lack of them.
Thanks. I do try hard to be explicit and to comment when necessary. I
still have a lot of work to do, but hopefully I'm getting there.
James
--
My blog: http://www.crazydrclaw.com/
My homepage: http://james.colannino.org/
"If Carpenters made houses the way programmers design programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy all of civilization." --Computer Proverb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-23 19:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-21 19:10 Code critique: checking for syntax errors James Colannino
2006-01-22 9:34 ` Jesse Ruffin
2006-01-23 19:47 ` James Colannino [this message]
2006-01-23 22:37 ` Jesse Ruffin
2006-01-23 22:59 ` James Colannino
2006-01-24 0:44 ` Jesse Ruffin
2006-01-24 2:06 ` James Colannino
2006-01-24 9:34 ` Glynn Clements
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=43D532D6.9050204@colannino.org \
--to=james@colannino.org \
--cc=linux-c-programming@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).