Subject:
|
Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:59:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1884 times
|
| |
|
|
Ben Laurie wrote:
> You are wrong. The precedent, naturally, is C, coz NQC, isn't quite,
> err, C. Backslash _is_ the escaping character in C, even on Windoze. So,
> to write \a\b\c as a correct C string (yes, even a VC++ one), you have
> to write "\\a\\b\\c", and if you want to use UNC it gets worse, e.g.
> "\\\\yourmachine\\mount\\a\\b\\c".
I don't deny that this is the way C does it.
But nevertheless, when you pass parameters *on the Win command line*, shouldn't you
follow the behavior that is de-facto standard (even if "incorrect" from a C view)
for *that* OS, irresepective of which language he is using for his code generation?
It seems to me that you are talking from a strict, probably "correct", (K,R & T
purist) point of view. While I don't care which way is "correct" if that correct way
isn't what most people in the Win32 world really expect. (In my previous message,
when I said "incorrect", I should have said "not the way the DOS/Win world is
expecting". I should have expected to attract the anger of a K, R & T cultist :-)
Yes, I know that DOS did a great job of confusing "/" and "\" historically. But
anyway, the normal way under DOS/Win to specify paths is "\", while the "/" (like
the "-") is usually used to prefix parameters. This is how *Win32 itself* (its
command processor in a shell) behaves:
dir c:\nqc\cc gives me the expected (by me) result, while
dir c:/nqc/cc is not understood by Win which tries to interpret the "nqc" as a
modifier of the dir command
(although I can force to make it work by using doublequotes)
In no case, however, is Win's command processor using the backslash as an escape
character.
Hmm, I'm afraid this is getting off-topic. I hope we haven't bothered anyone.
Finally, of course, I don't mind which way Dave and Mark will go, as long as it will
work :-)
Uwe
P.S.: I'd really love to test the b2, but don't like to go without the conveniences
of RcxCC. I tried to patch RcxCC, but to no avail so far. If someone did this
successfully or found another workaround, I'd be glad to know of it.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
| (...) Absolutely! I guess I misunderstood. Cheers, Ben. -- SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! (URL) grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
| (...) You are wrong. The precedent, naturally, is C, coz NQC, isn't quite, err, C. Backslash _is_ the escaping character in C, even on Windoze. So, to write \a\b\c as a correct C string (yes, even a VC++ one), you have to write "\\a\\b\\c", and if (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
