I just found some programmers use one over another in every scenario, and I
could not see any reason for this bias. I just wanted to know if some advantage
existed. Sorry for the bad question.
--
Aditya Goturu
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling
down the
FRIGN said:
>> Is there any particular reason why I would use unix's fd and open()
>> instead of ANSI's FILE struct and fopen()?
>
> Yes.
This is the best answer I have ever seen on this list.
--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:06:04 +0530
Aditya Goturu wrote:
> Is there any particular reason why I would use unix's fd and open()
> instead of ANSI's FILE struct and fopen()?
Yes.
--
FRIGN
> That said, I find the question silly and would like to know whether
> you learned any program outside of youtube, like, with documentation
...any programming outside...
Seriously, RTFM. It's not like this is a place for social studies
about programming, because all the things people might tell y
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Aditya Goturu wrote:
> Is there any particular reason why I would use unix's fd and open()
> instead of ANSI's FILE struct and fopen()?
FILE is generally easier to use and provides application-centric
interfaces such as the setbuf() family of functions. The FILE
Is there any particular reason why I would use unix's fd and open()
instead of ANSI's FILE struct and fopen()?
--
Aditya Goturu
"The most dangerous phrase in the language is, We’ve always done it
this way" - Grace Hopper
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Hiltjo Posthuma
> wrote:
>> ... snip ...
>>
>
Some more thoughts: in drw.c these functions don't check if drw ==
NULL before use: drw_load_fonts, drw_font_xcreate.
We should probably not check these in d
