Then afaik, you don't need any of that logic Just use a while loop checking each digit i. If digit even, evenDigitCount++ ii. Else continue

This also takes care of single digit number, 0, negative number with no problem

Then afaik, you don't need any of that logic Just use a while loop checking each digit i. If digit even, evenDigitCount++ ii. Else continue

OK I'll try that, I sent a code my friend did, and he did there the math part that cunfuse me..

Ty 😊

Gcc compiles to pie (position independent executable) The book I am reading describes it as a hacker safe feature. Is PIE == ASLR?

Hello friends Does anyone have a php programming group? Thank you for sending me

Correct Same with pie right?

Pie too

Hi

Yeah, np. Thanks

/get c++

/getc++

Hello friends Does anyone have a php programming group? Thank you for sending me

@en_it_chats

@en_it_chats

Thank you ❤️

Ok, then maybe resources for c?

"effective C" by Robert C. Seacord is a great book, really great book!

/get c++book

Could anyone assist me how to find greater numbers & equal to all possibilities for 4 variables by using conditional operator without using logic gates?

Anyone??

Anyone??

No

No

What?

What?

Write it yourself

Write it yourself

Thanks

You're welcome

Ok

What is the difference between these three C compilers? Which one is more powerful and widely used.

What is the difference between these three C compilers? Which one is more powerful and widely used.

Those are all the mainstream compilers

*The three mainstream compilers

int **ptr; "ptr is a pointer to a pointer to an int." Why would I do this.

What is the difference between these three C compilers? Which one is more powerful and widely used.

Gcc is good I’m using

int **ptr; "ptr is a pointer to a pointer to an int." Why would I do this.

Like the main function has this too sometimes. int main(int argc, char** argv)

And why would that be useful?

why would I ever want to reference a pointer by itself

And why would that be useful?

1. change pointer inside function 2. allocate array of pointers

Thx

Why lol? It is the same.

Btw all arrays in the function declaration decay into pointers. Hence there's no "pass by value" semantic for arrays in C.

Why lol? It is the same.

Readability

Readability

It's even worse than egyptian brackets vs new line brackets controversy.

It doesn't matter at all unless you've got a severe brain damage

K&R is incredibly outdated

char a3[3]="abc";/* a1 is char[3] holding {'a','b','c'}, missing the '\0' */ Isn't this false? The char array isn't missing a \0 since arrays are zero indexed I thought..

a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, '\0' = 3

char a3[3]="abc";/* a1 is char[3] holding {'a','b','c'}, missing the '\0' */ Isn't this false? The char array isn't missing a \0 since arrays are zero indexed I thought..

a3[3] is out of bounds

int **ptr; "ptr is a pointer to a pointer to an int." Why would I do this.

To change the pointer itself. Example - passing the pointer to some function and making a realloc there.

a3[3] is out of bounds

why

why

Size is 3.

To change the pointer itself. Example - passing the pointer to some function and making a realloc there.

Thanks

Size is 3.

But it is zero indexed, so technically it is four.

Size is 3.

One shall not access array by the index < 0 || index > size-1

Thanks

Technically you can just do int *ptr = something; ptr = fn(ptr); (fn returns the new pointer) But this adds another alternative

One shall not access array by the index < 0 || index > size-1

But isn't this reasoning correct? a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, '\0' = 3

But isn't this reasoning correct? a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, '\0' = 3

No.

Your array's capacity is 3 elements

int arr[2] = {10, 10, 10}; Why does this work then

char a3[3]="abc";/* a1 is char[3] holding {'a','b','c'}, missing the '\0' */ Isn't this false? The char array isn't missing a \0 since arrays are zero indexed I thought..

The 3 in array definition is the size, not an index

int arr[2] = {10, 10, 10}; Why does this work then

It doesn't

Compiler will yell at ya, that the size doesn't not match init list

It doesn't

Uh... Okay, but arrays are zero indexed. To me, there are three elements if it is zero indexed. 0, 1, 2 -> that is three elements.

Wait I think I know

Uh... Okay, but arrays are zero indexed. To me, there are three elements if it is zero indexed. 0, 1, 2 -> that is three elements.

Yes, but size is not +1

They are zero indexed when I access them, NOT when I create them.

It is exactly how many elems you can store

int arr[2] = {10, 10}; arr[0] = the first element

They are zero indexed when I access them, NOT when I create them.

Don't mix initialization and indexing

indexing is just *(arr + i)

They are zero indexed when I access them, NOT when I create them.

So this is correct

So this is correct

You are not indexing them on creation

You just put size into brackets

Yeah, that's what I said

When I declare an array I specify it's size (which is NOT zero indexed) When I access an element in the array it IS zero indexed

When I declare an array I specify it's size (which is NOT zero indexed) When I access an element in the array it IS zero indexed

One too many times is not enough, ain't it? Indexing is getting the value from an array.

Ya, okay

My terminology was off, but you know what I meant

The SIZE of an array does NOT start at zero when I INITIALIZE it

The SIZE of an array does NOT start at zero when I INITIALIZE it

In C you can create a zero size array

But you can't store anything within it

Yeah.

Okay, thanks for clearing my confusion

whats wrong in array rotation algorithm

practicing juggling algo.

* Long code snippets must be posted via a snippet website(links below), posting pictures of code and posting long snippets in the group is not allowed. For posting long code snippets: * [GitHub Gist](https://gist.github.com) * [Ubuntu Paste](https://paste.ubuntu.com/) * [Pastebin](https://pastebin.com)

ok