16 May
2005
16 May
'05
4:06 p.m.
On Mon, 16 May 2005, John Hogerhuis wrote:
On 5/16/05, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
<spc at conman.org> wrote:
I trump thee collectively:
void print_arg(int *aryp, size_t n)
{
char *t="%u,";
int i=0;
for (;(i==n-1 ? t="%u" : i<n);) printf(t, *aryp + i++);
putchar('\n');
}
A little ugly (the compiler complains about the type mismatch in the unary
expression) but otherwise it works without caveats (that I know of ;)
I suspect someone might bum it down further...no more precious time to
expend on this useless pursuit ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Hmmm ...
void print_arg(int *aryp,size_t n)
{
printf("%u",*aryp++);
while(--n)
{
printf(",%u",*aryp++);
}
putchar('\n');
}
-spc (avoids additional variables, no GOTOs, and one conditional ... )
<<THUMP>> (spc just hit in the forehead by an eraser).
Straighten up and get serious. You used twice as much printf as
everybody else. Have you ever seen the setup for a printf call in
assembler?
I wonder if even the compiler can save you from this shameless bit of excess.