I want unsigned char * string literals

[Michael B Allen]

Re: I want unsigned char * string literals

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:55:24 -0400
Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:

Michael B Allen wrote:

[...]
I never said that the exiting malloc(3) function should be changed to
have a context object. I just said it was useless [...]

>
For the Nth time: Forget about C and find a language
more suited to your tastes. If you truly believe C is
useless, you're just wasting your time and our patience.
Go away! Be happy! Be happy somewhere else, please!
We who are about to be obsoleted salute thee; just leave
us to our misery and begone!

Oh please. I appreciate your input. It's usually good advice. But spare
me the drama. Just because I think The C Standard Library is useless
[1], that has little impact on using C The Language.

Mike

[1] Ok, yes, "useless" is an exaggeration simply because you *have*
to use the standard library to interface with the host. But otherwise
I don't use a lot of it (e.g. I literally don't use malloc *at all* -
I have my own allocators).

[Malcolm McLean]

Re: I want unsigned char * string literals


"Michael B Allen" <ioplex@gmail.c omwrote in message
news:2007072323 4558.410d2e9f.i oplex@gmail.com ...

Oh please. I appreciate your input. It's usually good advice. But spare
me the drama. Just because I think The C Standard Library is useless
[1], that has little impact on using C The Language.
>

I grew up on systems without a standard library.
Just about the first thing I always did when getting new hardware was to
implement a cut down stdlib for it.

--
Free games and programming goodies.

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Mark McIntyre]

Re: I want unsigned char * string literals

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:45:58 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Michael B Allen
<ioplex@gmail.c omwrote:

>On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:55:24 -0400
>Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:
>

>Michael B Allen wrote:

[...]
I never said that the exiting malloc(3) function should be changed to
have a context object. I just said it was useless [...]

>>
> For the Nth time: Forget about C and find a language
>more suited to your tastes.

>Just because I think The C Standard Library is useless
>[1], that has little impact on using C The Language.

The point is, the Standard Library is part of the language definition.
You are also apparently taking exception to how C defines a string
variable. This is a fundamental part of C. And claiming that malloc is
useless is just plain stupid (tm).

--
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 Bos]

Re: I want unsigned char * string literals

Michael B Allen <ioplex@gmail.c omwrote:

Incedentially, the current malloc is reentrant and thread-safe because
it uses locks (although I don't recall of the top of my head if that
is a standards requirement).

_The_ current malloc()? I suspect you don't grasp the real situation,
here.

Richard