Some Questions.

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Some Questions.

In article <a6q1u4-5v6.ln1@news.in dividual.net>,
Richard <rgrdev@gmail.c omwrote:

>GeorgeRXZ <georgerxz@gmai l.comwrites:
>

>On Oct 11, 2:47 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

>>GeorgeRXZ said:
>>>
>Hi Friends,
>>>
>I have some questions related to C Language.
>>>
>1What is the difference between the standard C language and Non
>standard C language ?
>>>
>>Standard C is C. "Non-standard C" is something that isn't C.

>
>Don't be ridiculous.

Welcome to clc. Hope you enjoy your stay.

>>>
>2which is better C Lanugage, C under Linux/ Unix or C under
>windows/ DOS ?
>>>
>>The C language doesn't care which platform you use.

>
>That is not what he asked.
>

>>>
>3 Under Linux Platform why Conio.h and and many other header files
>are not available in C Language Compiler ?
>>>
>>C doesn't define Conio.h. If you want one, write your own.

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

C is case sensitive.

(Yes, he was being intentionally stupid/obstructive)

[Martin Ambuhl]

Re: Some Questions.

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]

Re: Some Questions.

"Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@xmissi on.xmission.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:felp11$d8b $1@news.xmissio n.com...

In article <a6q1u4-5v6.ln1@news.in dividual.net>,
Richard <rgrdev@gmail.c omwrote:

>>GeorgeRXZ <georgerxz@gmai l.comwrites:
>>

>>On Oct 11, 2:47 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:
>>>GeorgeRXZ said:
>>3 Under Linux Platform why Conio.h and and many other header files
>>are not available in C Language Compiler ?
>>>>
>>>C doesn't define Conio.h. If you want one, write your own.

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

>
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]

Re: Some Questions.

Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys .orgwrites:
[...]

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.

C does have I/O (<stdio.h>), though without support for a lot of
lower-level stuff.

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.

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Some Questions.

In article <felrg5$98d$1@o nline.de>,
Joachim Schmitz <jojo@schmitz-digital.dewrote :

>"Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@xmissi on.xmission.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:felp11$d8 b$1@news.xmissi on.com...

>In article <a6q1u4-5v6.ln1@news.in dividual.net>,
>Richard <rgrdev@gmail.c omwrote:

>>>GeorgeRXZ <georgerxz@gmai l.comwrites:
>>>
>>>On Oct 11, 2:47 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:
>>>>GeorgeRXZ said:
>>>3 Under Linux Platform why Conio.h and and many other header files
>>>are not available in C Language Compiler ?
>>>>>
>>>>C doesn't define Conio.h. If you want one, write your own.
>>>
>>>Are you being purposely obstructive again? conio does exist. as does
>>>curses. Why would he write his own?

>>
>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.

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.

[Walter Roberson]

Re: Some Questions.

In article <a6q1u4-5v6.ln1@news.in dividual.net>,
Richard <rgrdev@gmail.c omwrote:

>GeorgeRXZ <georgerxz@gmai l.comwrites:

>On Oct 11, 2:47 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

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

>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 TwoSkeletonsLau ghing.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
TwoSkeletonsLau ghing.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.
--
"Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
been already of old time, which was before us." -- Ecclesiastes

[Default User]

Re: Some Questions.

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

"Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@xmissi on.xmission.com schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:felp11$d8b $1@news.xmissio n.com...

C is case sensitive.

So what? Conio.h isn't part of Standard C,

Please don't feed the troll.




Brian

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Some Questions.

In article <5n7ehoFgnme5U1 @mid.individual .net>,
Default User <defaultuserbr@ yahoo.comwrote:

>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>

>"Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@xmissi on.xmission.com schrieb im
>Newsbeitrag news:felp11$d8b $1@news.xmissio n.com...

>

C is case sensitive.

>So what? Conio.h isn't part of Standard C,

>
>Please don't feed the troll.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Some Questions.

Ernie Wright said:

>>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>in early Microsoft
>>>>implementat ions you call something like _gclearscreen - although I
>>>>could easily be misremembering the precise function name.

>
Close enough. The call was
>
_clearscreen( _GCLEARSCREEN );

Dat der bunny. Thanks, Ernie.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Kenneth Brody]

Re: Some Questions.

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:ThisIsA SpamTrap@gmail. com>

[John Bode]

Re: Some Questions.

On Oct 11, 4:32 am, GeorgeRXZ <george...@gmai l.comwrote:

Hi Friends,
>
I have some questions related to C Language.
>
1What 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.

2which 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.

4Which 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 george...@gmail .com
>
GEOrgE

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Re: Some Questions.

[snips]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:24:29 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:

>>>>>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.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Re: Some Questions.

[snips]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:16:02 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

C has no io

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

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Some Questions.

In article <de3cu4-5dk.ln1@spanky. localhost.net>,
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gma il.comwrote:

>[snips]
>
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:24:29 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>

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

[Kenneth Brody]

What is &quot;writte n entirely in C&quot;? (was Re: Some Questions.)

Kenny McCormack wrote:
[...]

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
"<xis not C" (2) (where <xis 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.

I'd have to see such a quote in context to see exactly what was said.
Of course, what the (probably) really mean is "it doesn't exist _as_
_far_as_the_sta ndard_is_concer ned_".

I have a cup of water next to me. It obviously exists, despite the
fact that the standard makes no mention of cups or water. (Heck, it
doesn't even mention "me".)

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."

I think they would agree that there are other forms out there. There
is "Microsoft C", there is "gcc C", there is "Watcom C", and so on.

The point is, that in clc, the unqualified use of "C" means "ISO C",
but some people need to be told that explicitly. I would probably
say that the software I write is "written entirely in C", but
technically (as far as clc is concerned) it should really be "written
in C, using extensions which are defined in other standards such as
POSIX, plus some other system-specific extensions". The language and
syntax of my code is pretty close to pure "ISO C", but it calls
functions which are not defined by the standard, and those functions
do things which by there very nature are system-specific.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer .h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:ThisIsA SpamTrap@gmail. com>