I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even I
can see. Celsius is uninialized.

/* code */

#include <stdio.h>

main(){
int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
lower=0;
upper=300;
step=20;
fahr=lower;
while (fahr<=upper)
{celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;
fahr=farh+step;}}

/*end*/

Celsius is intialized within the body of the while function. Why is this
code from k&r2 not working?

Bill

In article <b9l2j.29168$Xg.23657@trnddc06>,
Bill Cunningham <some@net.com> wrote:
> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even I
>can see. Celsius is uninialized.

>/* code */

>#include <stdio.h>
>
>main(){
> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
> lower=0;
> upper=300;
> step=20;
> fahr=lower;
> while (fahr<=upper)
> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
> printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;

Did you notice the misspelling of celsius on the above line?

> fahr=farh+step;}}
>
>/*end*/
--
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even I
> can see. Celsius is uninialized.
>
> /* code */
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> main(){
> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
> lower=0;
> upper=300;
> step=20;
> fahr=lower;
> while (fahr<=upper)
> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
> printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;
> fahr=farh+step;}}
>
> /*end*/
>
> Celsius is intialized within the body of the while function. Why is this
> code from k&r2 not working?

You should read the message again. Isn't it rather "celsuis is
undefined"? celsuis?

And did you get something about "farh"?

"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:ficn3p$4rh$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> In article <b9l2j.29168$Xg.23657@trnddc06>,
> Bill Cunningham <some@net.com> wrote:
>> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even I
>>can see. Celsius is uninialized.
>
>>/* code */
>
>>#include <stdio.h>
>>
>>main(){
>> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
>> lower=0;
>> upper=300;
>> step=20;
>> fahr=lower;
>> while (fahr<=upper)
>> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
>> printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;
>
> Did you notice the misspelling of celsius on the above line?

No. My mistake then.
>
>> fahr=farh+step;}}
>>
>>/*end*/

Bill Cunningham wrote:
>
> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that
> even I can see. Celsius is uninialized.
>
> /* code */
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> main(){
> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
> lower=0;
> upper=300;
> step=20;
> fahr=lower;
> while (fahr<=upper)
> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
> printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;
> fahr=farh+step;}}
>
> /*end*/
>
> Celsius is intialized within the body of the while function. Why
> is this code from k&r2 not working?

Because that is not the code from K&R.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even I
> can see. Celsius is uninialized.
>
> /* code */
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> main(){
> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
> lower=0;
> upper=300;
> step=20;
> fahr=lower;
> while (fahr<=upper)
> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
> printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;
> fahr=farh+step;}}
>
> /*end*/
>
> Celsius is intialized within the body of the while function. Why is this
> code from k&r2 not working?

Most likely because of various typos which make it very different from
the code in K&R2.

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even I
> can see. Celsius is uninialized.
>
> /* code */
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> main(){
> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
> lower=0;
> upper=300;
> step=20;
> fahr=lower;
> while (fahr<=upper)
> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
> printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;
> fahr=farh+step;}}
>
> /*end*/
>
> Celsius is intialized within the body of the while function. Why is this
> code from k&r2 not working?
>
> Bill
>
>
Mine works..

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
int fahr, celcius;
int lower, upper, step;

lower = 0;
upper = 300;
step = 20;

fahr = lower;
while (fahr <= upper) {
celcius = 5 * (fahr - 32) / 9;
printf("%d\t%d\n", fahr, celcius);
fahr = fahr + step;
}
return 0;
}

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

Bill Cunningham wrote:

>>> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
>>> printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;
>>
>> Did you notice the misspelling of celsius on the above line?
>
> No. My mistake then.

The Typo, the bane of compilation!

I remember I once spent 2 hours trying to find the problem in a program (of
mine) that failed to build, some times I wish they made a compiler that gave
errors like:

file:line !!! PEBKAC !!!
sp,member != sp.member -- you are a blind idiot,

After finally finding out that I had been working to long to notice the
difference between , and . I decided to get a better font xD

--
no brainer:
A decision which, viewed through the retrospectoscope,
is "obvious" to those who failed to make it originally.

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even I
> can see. Celsius is uninialized.
It has a value assigned before use, so what's the problem?
[...]
int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
[...]
> while (fahr<=upper)
> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
[...]
> Why is this
> code from k&r2 not working?

Is this really the code from K&R2? If it is, perhaps we should retreat
to K&R1, where these lines are
while )fahr <= upper) {
celsius = (5.0/9.0) * (fahr-32.0);

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4749F6CE.B79E4735@yahoo.com...
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that
>> even I can see. Celsius is uninialized.
>>
>> /* code */
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> main(){
>> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
>> lower=0;
>> upper=300;
>> step=20;
>> fahr=lower;
>> while (fahr<=upper)
>> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
>> printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;
>> fahr=farh+step;}}
>>
>> /*end*/
>>
>> Celsius is intialized within the body of the while function. Why
>> is this code from k&r2 not working?
>
> Because that is not the code from K&R.
Very ful answer 8-(
Fortunatly others had been far more full in pointing out the typo(s)

Bye, Jojo

"Martin Ambuhl" <mambuhl@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5qv56aF11u6miU1@mid.individual.net...
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even
>> I can see. Celsius is uninialized.
> It has a value assigned before use, so what's the problem?
> [...]
> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
> [...]
>> while (fahr<=upper)
>> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
> [...]
>> Why is this code from k&r2 not working?
>
> Is this really the code from K&R2? If it is, perhaps we should retreat to
> K&R1, where these lines are
> while )fahr <= upper) {
> celsius = (5.0/9.0) * (fahr-32.0);
Really? Does K&R1 have such bad typos?

After correction it gives a warning:
implicit conversion from "double" to "int": rounding, sign extension, or
loss of accuracy may result

Bye, Jojo

"Joe Wright" <joewwright@comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:27SdnaWFpZvgp9fanZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even
>> I can see. Celsius is uninialized.
>>
>> /* code */
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> main(){
>> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
>> lower=0;
>> upper=300;
>> step=20;
>> fahr=lower;
>> while (fahr<=upper)
>> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
>> printf("%d\t%d\n",fahr,celsuis;
>> fahr=farh+step;}}
>>
>> /*end*/
>>
>> Celsius is intialized within the body of the while function. Why is this
>> code from k&r2 not working?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
> Mine works..
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int fahr, celcius;
> int lower, upper, step;
>
> lower = 0;
> upper = 300;
> step = 20;
>
> fahr = lower;
> while (fahr <= upper) {
> celcius = 5 * (fahr - 32) / 9;
> printf("%d\t%d\n", fahr, celcius);
> fahr = fahr + step;
> }
> return 0;
> }
Your code might work, but it too misspells celsius.

Bye, Jojo

PS: This is something I notice immediatelly, because Celsius(weg) is the
street I live at... If I have to spell Celsius I usually refer to
Fahrenheit, once with the result that it got spelled "Felsius" 8-)

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
> "Martin Ambuhl" <mambuhl@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:5qv56aF11u6miU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that even
>>> I can see. Celsius is uninialized.
>> It has a value assigned before use, so what's the problem?
>> [...]
>> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
>> [...]
>>> while (fahr<=upper)
>>> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
>> [...]
>>> Why is this code from k&r2 not working?
>> Is this really the code from K&R2? If it is, perhaps we should retreat to
>> K&R1, where these lines are
>> while )fahr <= upper) {
>> celsius = (5.0/9.0) * (fahr-32.0);
> Really? Does K&R1 have such bad typos?

No, that's my typo (and unless I missing something, that is properly
singular).
>
> After correction it gives a warning:
> implicit conversion from "double" to "int": rounding, sign extension, or
> loss of accuracy may result

While your implementation is free to issue such warnings, they are
hardly required. People with a mania for compiles without warnings
might take this is an indication that they should "fix" the code with a
useless cast. Since casts to "shut the compiler up" are all too
frequently a bad idea, I'm not so sure that the warning is a good idea.

In article <fidsvi$1gj$1@online.de>, Joachim Schmitz
<nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> wrote on Monday 26 Nov 2007 1:05 pm:

> "Martin Ambuhl" <mambuhl@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:5qv56aF11u6miU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>> I copied this code from page 9 k&r 2 and it gives an error that
>>> even
>>> I can see. Celsius is uninialized.
>> It has a value assigned before use, so what's the problem?
>> [...]
>> int fahr,celsius,lower,upper,step;
>> [...]
>>> while (fahr<=upper)
>>> {celsius=5*(fahr-32)/9;
>> [...]
>>> Why is this code from k&r2 not working?
>>
>> Is this really the code from K&R2? If it is, perhaps we should
>> retreat to K&R1, where these lines are
>> while )fahr <= upper) {
>> celsius = (5.0/9.0) * (fahr-32.0);
> Really? Does K&R1 have such bad typos?
>
> After correction it gives a warning:
> implicit conversion from "double" to "int": rounding, sign extension,
> or loss of accuracy may result

I could be wrong but, depending on the value in 'fahr', that statement
might invoke undefined behaviour.

Joachim Schmitz said:

> "Joe Wright" <joewwright@comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

<snip>

>> printf("%d\t%d\n", fahr, celcius);
>> fahr = fahr + step;
>> }
>> return 0;
>> }
> Your code might work, but it too misspells celsius.
>
> Bye, Jojo
>
> PS: This is something I notice immediatelly,

I note that your spelling flame contains a spelling error. It's
heart-warming to see the old traditions being maintained. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:r5ednTvt4P9bCdfanZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@bt.com...
> Joachim Schmitz said:
>
>> "Joe Wright" <joewwright@comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>
> <snip>
>
>>> printf("%d\t%d\n", fahr, celcius);
>>> fahr = fahr + step;
>>> }
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>> Your code might work, but it too misspells celsius.
>>
>> Bye, Jojo
>>
>> PS: This is something I notice immediatelly,
>
> I note that your spelling flame contains a spelling error. It's
> heart-warming to see the old traditions being maintained. :-)
After all I live at Celsiusweg, not at Immediately Drive 8-)

Bye, Jojo

"Martin Ambuhl" <mambuhl@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5qvg25F11d209U1@mid.individual.net...
> Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>> "Martin Ambuhl" <mambuhl@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:5qv56aF11u6miU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Bill Cunningham wrote:
snip
>> After correction it gives a warning:
>> implicit conversion from "double" to "int": rounding, sign extension, or
>> loss of accuracy may result
>
> While your implementation is free to issue such warnings, they are hardly
> required. People with a mania for compiles without warnings might take
> this is an indication that they should "fix" the code with a useless cast.
> Since casts to "shut the compiler up" are all too frequently a bad idea,
> I'm not so sure that the warning is a good idea.
But in this case it tells me that using double arithmetic doesn't buy a
thing in the first place.

Bye, Jojo