21–30 of 32 posts
Stopped at #3. It seems incorrect. The answer states that foo returns x to the power of n. But I ruled that answer out since any 0 or negative n is going to return 1. edit: added emphasis
int foo(int x, int n);
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are not the problem with C. Things like a lack of support for functional programming constructs and more powerful manipulation of structs (e.g. iterating over fields and inspecting variable types) would be much more improvement to C than minor cosmetic changes that would hide the details that this quiz asks about.
You've obviously know very little about the motivation of Go then...
In the answer to 9 I don't see why 'Evaluating ++i + ++i would produce undefined behavior'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was not only possible to initialize arrays like that in C89, that method is often referred to as "C89-style". Also, let's not forget what the C standard says about integer sizes, which is that A) It is guaranteed that sizeof char == 1 B) It is guaranteed that the following holds true: sizeof char So it's always completely unrealistic to assume anything about the size of these types on any system, except for the gu…
A char might always be one byte but one byte isn't necessarily 8 bits. I'm often puzzled by the fact that the size of basic datatypes isn't platform independent. If I need to count to x I, more often than not, need to count to x on all platforms. Yet for some reason that is something that varies on platform. Yes, there are of course times when this is useful but that should be the exception (right?). And apparently t…
So int is for things like loop indices, where efficiency of arithmetic is more important than size in memory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was not only possible to initialize arrays like that in C89, that method is often referred to as "C89-style". Also, let's not forget what the C standard says about integer sizes, which is that A) It is guaranteed that sizeof char == 1 B) It is guaranteed that the following holds true: sizeof char So it's always completely unrealistic to assume anything about the size of these types on any system, except for the gu…
A char might always be one byte but one byte isn't necessarily 8 bits. I'm often puzzled by the fact that the size of basic datatypes isn't platform independent. If I need to count to x I, more often than not, need to count to x on all platforms. Yet for some reason that is something that varies on platform. Yes, there are of course times when this is useful but that should be the exception (right?). And apparently t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was not only possible to initialize arrays like that in C89, that method is often referred to as "C89-style". Also, let's not forget what the C standard says about integer sizes, which is that A) It is guaranteed that sizeof char == 1 B) It is guaranteed that the following holds true: sizeof char So it's always completely unrealistic to assume anything about the size of these types on any system, except for the gu…
A char might always be one byte but one byte isn't necessarily 8 bits. I'm often puzzled by the fact that the size of basic datatypes isn't platform independent. If I need to count to x I, more often than not, need to count to x on all platforms. Yet for some reason that is something that varies on platform. Yes, there are of course times when this is useful but that should be the exception (right?). And apparently t…
In the answer to 9 I don't see why 'Evaluating ++i + ++i would produce undefined behavior'
There's no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_point between the two increments, so the standard allows the compiler to do pretty much anything, even http://catb.org/jargon/html/N/nasal-demons.html . The way I've heard it, these operators were added to take advantage of pre- and post-increment hardware support in the PDP-11 (forty years ago!), and everyone just knew what would happen, but ANSI later wanted compiler…
Stopped at #3. It seems incorrect. The answer states that foo returns x to the power of n. But I ruled that answer out since any 0 or negative n is going to return 1. edit: added emphasis
You could have ruled it out from the function signature alone: int foo(int x, int n); This cannot be x^n, nor n^x or x*n.