Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:05:42 05/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2004 at 18:41:59, Randall Shane wrote:
>On May 27, 2004 at 18:10:47, Uri Blass wrote:
><snippage>
>>
>>I do not get the same move twice when I have
>>printf("%s ",move_str(0));
>>printf("%s ",move_str(1));
>>
>>I thought that
>>printf("%s %s ",move_str(0),move_str(1));
>>should be exactly the same instruction.
>>
>>I understand now that it is not and the second printf does not print move_str(1)
>>immediatly after it calculates it but calculates also move_str(0) and change the
>>value of move_str(1) by doing it.
>>
>>I think that it is a bug in the language or in the compiler because it is clear
>>that the programmer mean the same in both cases.
>>
>>
>>correct compiler can solve the problem by translating
>>
>>printf("%s %s ",move_str(0),move_str(1));
>>to
>>printf("%s ",move_str(0));
>>printf("%s ",move_str(1));
>>
>>I see no logical reason not to translate it in that way from human point of
>>view.
>
>Ah, but how is the compiler supposed to know that you didn't mean to overwrite
>the array, which is defined internal to your move_str routine?
Without
>extensive and deep analysis of the routines, it can't make that assumption.
I think it can make this assumption.
I see no reason to write one printf of 2 strings and to mean different thing
than the thing that is done by 2 printf.
It is a confusing code.
The compiler should at least warn me if the meaning of one printf can be
different than the meaning of 2 printf in that case.
>Even then, how is it supposed to know that you really wanted two separate
>strings? Maybe you wanted the behavior you got -- it can't know that.
If I want that behaviour then I should use different code and not use code when
2 printf have a different meaning than 1 printf.
Uri
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.