Sign in to follow this  
NUCLEAR RABBIT

C Do/While Loop problem

Recommended Posts

NUCLEAR RABBIT    318
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?

[source]
#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;
}[/source]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shuma-gorath    1161
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nypyren    12063
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.

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

if (result == x)
break;
}
[/code] Edited by Nypyren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fae    214
[quote name='Nypyren' timestamp='1354308092' post='5005836']
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.

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

if (result == x)
break;
}
[/code]
[/quote]

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khatharr    8812
[quote name='Nypyren' timestamp='1354308092' post='5005836']
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.

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

if (result == x)
break;
}
[/code]
[/quote]

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

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alvaro    21246
[quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1354581055' post='5006858']
[code]
for(int result; result != x; ) // this syntax loops indefinitely, so the only way out is a break, return, or exception.
{
// stuff
result = whatever;
}
[/code]

?
[/quote]
That syntax uses `result' uninitialized. I am perfectly happy with the infinite-loop-with-break solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trienco    2555
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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cornstalks    7030
[quote name='fae' timestamp='1354526009' post='5006548']
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:

[code]
{
// stuff
int result = whatever;
if (result == x)
// other stuff
}
[/code]
[/quote]
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fae    214
[quote name='Cornstalks' timestamp='1354599792' post='5006978']
[quote name='fae' timestamp='1354526009' post='5006548']
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:

[code]
{
// stuff
int result = whatever;
if (result == x)
// other stuff
}
[/code]
[/quote]
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...
[/quote]

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.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khatharr    8812
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]

[img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png[/img]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bacterius    13165
[quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1354607178' post='5006998']
Anyway, I'll use 'while(true)' sometimes, although MSVC has an annoying warning about it. Suppose it's a matter of preference.
[/quote]
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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mhagain    13430
[quote name='Bacterius' timestamp='1354616906' post='5007029']
[quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1354607178' post='5006998']
Anyway, I'll use 'while(true)' sometimes, although MSVC has an annoying warning about it. Suppose it's a matter of preference.
[/quote]
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"?
[/quote]

"while (1)" throws the warning as well - [url="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6t66728h%28v=vs.80%29.aspx"]conditional expression is constant[/url]. 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)".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khatharr    8812
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cornstalks    7030
[quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1354657067' post='5007195']
Do we have an ASCII expert in here?
[/quote]
What do you need an ASCII expert for (not claiming to be one)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bacterius    13165
[quote]"for(;;)" looks like the arachnid version of a revolutionary's wall art. Or maybe it's a walrus?[/quote]
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mhagain    13430
[quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1354657067' post='5007195']
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.
[/quote]

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 [i]do[/i] agree that it's a pain is "do { ... } while (1)".

[quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1354657067' post='5007195']
Pity there's no explicit unconditional loop.
[/quote]

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.

[quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1354657067' post='5007195']
"for(;;)" looks like the arachnid version of a revolutionary's wall art. Or maybe it's a walrus?
[/quote]

Definitely a walrus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alvaro    21246
[quote name='mhagain' timestamp='1354669971' post='5007254']
[quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1354657067' post='5007195']
"for(;;)" looks like the arachnid version of a revolutionary's wall art. Or maybe it's a walrus?
[/quote]
Definitely a walrus.
[/quote]

Or maybe it belongs in [url="http://www.jokecrazy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26"]this collection[/url].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this