Re: Two questions on arrays with size defined by variables

On 10.02.2025 01:38, Keith Thompson wrote:

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

>
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.

And my  main() { ... }  was to figuratively illustrate the structure.

I could have also used  f() { ... }  but it didn't occur to me that
using main would trigger yet another off-topic comment.

As picky as I am, I wouldn't have commented on it.

Some are more picky some less, some on this detail others on that.

I think we're all well served if we'd be more equanimous especially
when postings or clarifying things are based on _excerpts_ or code
snippets.

I know that specifically in _this_ newsgroup that is difficult. :-)

"// ..." or "/* ... */" is more
pedantically correct, but whatever.

But this is code. The meta '...' is clearly descriptive for some
[contextually uninteresting] things omitted.

(You see what I mean by trying to be more equanimous. Perception
of folks differs a lot. We cannot expect others to share our views
or habits.)

 
(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.

That - returning a value when a function is declared to return
one - is actually a [maybe picky] coding-habit of mine. :-)

Janis