Subject:
|
Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 23:01:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1854 times
|
| |
|
|
Uwe Denzer wrote:
>
> 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?
Absolutely! I guess I misunderstood.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My 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; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
