In article
<0390e2b4-fa28-49b3-a867-39be6d668...@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
ImpalerCore <jadil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 9:01 pm, RG <rnospa...@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > [...@mighty:~]$ cat foo.c
> > #include <stdio.h>
> >
> > int maximum(int a, int b) { return a > b ? a : b; }
> >
> > int main() {
> > long x = 8589934592;
> > printf("Max of %ld and 1 is %d\n", x, maximum(x,1));
> > return 0;}
> >
> > [...@mighty:~]$ gcc -Wall foo.c
> > [...@mighty:~]$ ./a.out
> > Max of 8589934592 and 1 is 1
>
> In the context of procedural programming, there is always an implicit
> contract between the function and its client. If you're going to fool
> around sending cleverly crafted garbage into the input of 'maximum'
> due to C conversion rules, why do you expect the 'maximum' function to
> be responsible for producing the correct response to an ill-formed
> question? What alternative behavior of 'maximum' would you prefer to
> see, that the C language auto-promote the function arguments and
> return type to type long based on the type of arguments provided to
> the 'maximum' function?
>
> You either learn to play in the sandbox that C provides, splinters and
> all, or you find another sandbox.
>
> Best regards,
> John D.
You're missing a lot of context. I'm not trying to criticize C, just to
refute a false claim that was made about it.
rg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
