Re: Two questions on arrays with size defined by variables

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 09.02.2025 11:25, Keith Thompson wrote:

[...]

The first line needs to be `int main(void)`.  The "implicit int"
misfeature was removed in C99. [...]

>
Thanks. (Again answering more/something different than I asked.) :-)
>
Please note that I structurally illustrated just the posters question
about where the relevant code excerpt resides (file scope or else).
>
If I'd knew the audience is picky I'd posted the whole test program;
but then there's even much more picky comments to expect. ;-)

Yeah, we're picky here.

I hope to mollify the audience if I point out that my code actually
looks *like* this
>
  ...
  int main (int argc, char * argv[])
  {
      ...
      return 0;
  }
>
(And, yes, I know that the "..." is not correct, and argc is unused,
and I omitted 'const', etc.)

It's clear enough that the "..." is figurative.  As picky as I am,
I wouldn't have commented on it.  "// ..." or "/* ... */" is more
pedantically correct, but whatever.

(Incidentally, Perl has a "..." operator, nicknamed the Yada Yada
operator, intended to mark placeholder code that is not yet
implemented.)

The "return 0;" is unnecessary but harmless in C99 and later.

As for "const", there's nothing in the above snippet that requires it.
You can probably add a const or two to the argv declaration:
    const char *const *argv
but the standard doesn't include "const" in the declaration of argv.
Strictly speaking, adding "const" probably makes the program's behavior
undefined.

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */