how do i write a C programm with the output
++++++ or *******
locy 0 Newbie Poster
Recommended Answers
Jump to Posthow do i write a C programm with the output
++++++ or *******Give it as an argument to the printf() function, or learn how to use a loop.
Jump to Postsomething like this:
for(int i=0; i<10; i++) { printf("*"); // it will print '*' 10 times }
Jump to Postsomething like this:
for(int i=0; i<10; i++) { printf("*"); // it will print '*' 10 times }for(int i=0; i<10; i++) /* Not proper C syntax */
int i; for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) /* correct syntax */
Jump to Post>for(int i=0; i<10; i++) /* Not proper C syntax */
Not proper C89 syntax. C99 supports this feature.
All 15 Replies
mostafadotnet 18 Junior Poster
something like this:
for(int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
printf("*"); // it will print '*' 10 times
} Aia 1,977 Nearly a Posting Maven
something like this:
for(int i=0; i<10; i++) { printf("*"); // it will print '*' 10 times }
for(int i=0; i<10; i++) /* Not proper C syntax */
int i;
for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) /* correct syntax */
Narue 5,707 Bad Cop Team Colleague
>for(int i=0; i<10; i++) /* Not proper C syntax */
Not proper C89 syntax. C99 supports this feature.
Lardmeister 461 Posting Virtuoso
Looks like a matter of taste.
Aia 1,977 Nearly a Posting Maven
>for(int i=0; i<10; i++) /* Not proper C syntax */
Not proper C89 syntax. C99 supports this feature.
GCC defaults to C89. Add -std=c99 to the command line or to the settings of your IDE to use that syntax. Otherwise, you'll get a complain from the compiler.
Lardmeister 461 Posting Virtuoso
Doesn't look like a matter of taste then?
Aia 1,977 Nearly a Posting Maven
Doesn't look like a matter of taste then?
It doesn't have anything to do with taste. It has to do with which standard your compiler is able to work with.
Lardmeister 461 Posting Virtuoso
Doesn't look like a matter of taste!!
Narue 5,707 Bad Cop Team Colleague
>GCC defaults to C89.
That's nice. What's your point? I don't see any mention of gcc from either mostafadotnet or the OP, so you can't claim that his compiler doesn't default to C99. Personally, I think we should be assuming C89 (thus, your response was correct), but I'm not particularly keen on the way you went about it or the way you defended it.
It's best to keep C99 in mind, even if it's extremely unlikely that you'll be dealing with it. Our whole purpose is to pass on as much knowledge as possible, right?
dwks 149 Posting Whiz in Training
GCC defaults to C89. Add -std=c99 to the command line or to the settings of your IDE to use that syntax. Otherwise, you'll get a complain from the compiler.
Actually, GCC defaults to a GNU C mode by default, which is not the same thing as C89.
Aia 1,977 Nearly a Posting Maven
>That's nice.
I though so.
>What's your point?
To let the OP and people that read your follow up comment know that if their compiler complains about that particular syntax error, there's always a way of telling the compiler to use the C99 standard.
>I don't see any mention of gcc from either mostafadotnet or the OP, so you can't claim that his compiler doesn't default to C99.
You don't see any because there is none. However there's another post by the OP where he asks for a `free compiler' and sugestion has been given of using Dev-C++.
>Personally, I think we should be assuming C89 (thus, your response was correct), but I'm not particularly keen on the way you went about it or the way you defended it.
I personally always assume C89 because is a save default.
I quoted your comment as a reference of what I was pointing to. I don't have to defend anything. Nor it was a direct response to your comment.
>It's best to keep C99 in mind, even if it's extremely unlikely that you'll be dealing with it. Our whole purpose is to pass on as much knowledge as possible, right?
I agree with you there. That's why I mentioned about adding -std=c99 or similar to your compiler if it complains about C99 supported syntax.
Narue 5,707 Bad Cop Team Colleague
>there's always a way of telling the compiler to use the C99 standard.
Assuming the compiler supports the C99 standard in any way. Not many of them do.
>You don't see any because there is none.
Oh good. I was starting to think my eyes were going bad.
Aia 1,977 Nearly a Posting Maven
>You don't see any because there is none.
Oh good. I was starting to think my eyes were going bad.
Off topic:
Hardly an accurate test to know if your eyes are going bad. Don't assume anything. Consult an ophthalmology.
Lardmeister 461 Posting Virtuoso
Would an ophthalmologist be good enough?
Be a part of the DaniWeb community
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.