20 replies to this topic

[NUCLEAR RABBIT]

Hello, I am learning C at the moment and I just made a very simple program to get started with the basics, but I keep getting an error with my while statement and have no idea why! Can anyone please help me see what I am doing wrong?

#include <stdio.h>

#include <time.h>



int CheckNumbers(int, int);



int main()

{

	// Generates random number between 1-10

	srand(time(NULL));

	int comp_num = (rand() % 10 +1);

  

	// Gets the users number

	int player_num = 0;

  

	do

	{

		printf("Enter in a number (1-10): ");

		scanf("%d", &player_num);

  

		int result = CheckNumbers(player_num, comp_num);

  

		// determines if the numbers are the same

		if(result == 1)

		{

			printf("The number you entered is the same as the computers.\n");

			getchar();

		}

		else

		{

			printf("You and the computers numbers are different.\n");

			printf("computer number: %d & your number is: %d\n\n", comp_num, player_num);

			printf("Try again!\n\n");

			getchar();

		}

	}while(result != 1);

  

  

	return 0;

}

///////////////////////////

//

//   FUNCTION DEFINITIONS

//

///////////////////////////

int CheckNumbers(int num, int comp_num)

{

	if(num == comp_num)

		return 1;

	else

		return 0;

}

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[NUCLEAR RABBIT]

nevermind, I fixed it! int result was outside the scope

[shuma-gorath]

You'll have to move the declaration of "result" to outside the loop.

EDIT: Ah, I see you found the answer while I posted. My connection seems to be slow for some reason.

Edited by shuma-gorath, 30 November 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Nypyren]

I tend to use a "manual break" pattern when I don't want to lift the variable out of the loop. Some people might argue that this is a code smell, but I prioritize "narrowest variable scoping" and "use the least number of variables that work" in this case.

for(;;) // this syntax loops indefinitely, so the only way out is a break, return, or exception.
{
  // stuff
  int result = whatever;

  if (result == x)
	break;
}

Edited by Nypyren, 30 November 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[fae]

I tend to use a "manual break" pattern when I don't want to lift the variable out of the loop. Some people might argue that this is a code smell, but I prioritize "narrowest variable scoping" and "use the least number of variables that work" in this case.

for(;;) // this syntax loops indefinitely, so the only way out is a break, return, or exception.
{
  // stuff
  int result = whatever;

  if (result == x)
	break;
}

I sometime do the same thing, but without "for". I consider this a bit safer approach as it doesn't hit you so bad when you forget the break:

{
  // stuff
  int result = whatever;
  if (result == x)
    // other stuff
}

[Khatharr]

I tend to use a "manual break" pattern when I don't want to lift the variable out of the loop. Some people might argue that this is a code smell, but I prioritize "narrowest variable scoping" and "use the least number of variables that work" in this case.

for(;;) // this syntax loops indefinitely, so the only way out is a break, return, or exception.
{
  // stuff
  int result = whatever;

  if (result == x)
	break;
}

for(int result; result != x; ) // this syntax loops indefinitely, so the only way out is a break, return, or exception.
{
  // stuff
  result = whatever;
}

?

[Álvaro]

for(int result; result != x; ) // this syntax loops indefinitely, so the only way out is a break, return, or exception.
{
  // stuff
  result = whatever;
}

?

That syntax uses `result' uninitialized. I am perfectly happy with the infinite-loop-with-break solution.

[Trienco]

Result being uninitialized and as such potentially x, not even entering the loop is exactly the kind of bug I love so much. "We have a few customers reporting a really weird bug, but we are completely unable to reproduce it and have now wasted several weeks running test scenarios on a bunch of machines and staring at many thousands lines of related and semi-related code to figure it out. Turns out somebody ignored #1 in the coding guidelines: ALWAYS immediately initialize your variables and never justify laziness with 'better performance'."

So if x is unknown, you would have to initialized with something like "result = x+1" to be safe, resulting in awkward code that is more confusing than it has to be..

[Cornstalks]

I sometime do the same thing, but without "for". I consider this a bit safer approach as it doesn't hit you so bad when you forget the break:

{
  // stuff
  int result = whatever;
  if (result == x)
	// other stuff
}

Am I missing something? Because the way I read that, there's no looping, and if there's no looping, it's purpose is entirely different than the looping version, in which case you don't do the same thing...

[fae]

I sometime do the same thing, but without "for". I consider this a bit safer approach as it doesn't hit you so bad when you forget the break:

{
  // stuff
  int result = whatever;
  if (result == x)
	// other stuff
}

Am I missing something? Because the way I read that, there's no looping, and if there's no looping, it's purpose is entirely different than the looping version, in which case you don't do the same thing...

No you're absolutely correct. I was just focusing on the scoping part of Nypyren's post. However now that you mentioned I probably misinterpreted Nypyren's reason for the block as the topic of the discussion is loops after all..

[Khatharr]

Yeah, wasn't paying attention to the body when I did that. (derp) The var should have an initial value, but I just figure if you're gonna use a for loop that breaks when a var is at a specific value then why not use the for-loop syntax?

Here's an upgraded version:
[source lang="cpp"]void operator,() { for(int result = initial_val; result != x; ) { //do stuff result = whatever; }}[/source]



Anyway, I'll use 'while(true)' sometimes, although MSVC has an annoying warning about it. Suppose it's a matter of preference.

Edited by Khatharr, 04 December 2012 - 01:54 AM.

[Bacterius]

Anyway, I'll use 'while(true)' sometimes, although MSVC has an annoying warning about it. Suppose it's a matter of preference.

What does the warning say? If it's because of "true", you can just use 1 (or any value different from zero, really). Or does it literally babysit you saying "this is an infinite loop"?

[rip-off]

You lost me when you overloaded the comma operator.

[mhagain]

Anyway, I'll use 'while(true)' sometimes, although MSVC has an annoying warning about it. Suppose it's a matter of preference.

What does the warning say? If it's because of "true", you can just use 1 (or any value different from zero, really). Or does it literally babysit you saying "this is an infinite loop"?

"while (1)" throws the warning as well - conditional expression is constant. Personally I prefer to have the warning and just use "for (;;)" instead - the warning is far more useful than being able to do "while (1)".

[Khatharr]

I agree that the warning could potentially be useful, but I've probably triggered it a million times and it was always an intentional unconditional loop.

Pity there's no explicit unconditional loop.

"for(;;)" looks like the arachnid version of a revolutionary's wall art. Or maybe it's a walrus?

Do we have an ASCII expert in here?

[Cornstalks]

Do we have an ASCII expert in here?

What do you need an ASCII expert for (not claiming to be one)?

[Álvaro]

Is there such a thing as an ASCII expert? There isn't all that much to know about it...

[Bacterius]

"for(;;)" looks like the arachnid version of a revolutionary's wall art. Or maybe it's a walrus?

Well, I agree that for(;;) looks horrible and is much less readable at a glance than while(true), but if you can just remember that it means "loop indefinitely" then I guess it's fine.

[Paradigm Shifter]

Just #define ever (;;)

then you can do

for ever

;)

[mhagain]

I agree that the warning could potentially be useful, but I've probably triggered it a million times and it was always an intentional unconditional loop.

Have a read: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3490823/why-msvc-generates-warning-c4127-whan-constant-is-used-in-while-c - it outlines the general usefulness of the warning. My general philosophy on this is that if it saves your ass even just once then it's probably worth it.

The one case where I do agree that it's a pain is "do { ... } while (1)".

Pity there's no explicit unconditional loop.

According to the link above "for (;;)" is actually what is explicitly defined to be an infinite/unconditional loop, but I haven't cross-checked with the standard so take it with the appropriately sized grain of salt.

"for(;;)" looks like the arachnid version of a revolutionary's wall art. Or maybe it's a walrus?

Definitely a walrus.