Question

Replace the comment with one line of C code that will copy the string, source, to the char array, target.

int main(void)
{
char source[] = "COPYME";
char target[100];
char *s = source;
char *t = target;
/* REPLACE ME! */
printf(target);
return 0;
}

Answer 1

mind that source is of type char*, while target is of type char[100]

Answer 2

strcpy(target,source);

and it's doesn't matter of the type.

Answer 3

oops I forgot to mention no function calls :-P

Answer 4

so in this problem you are basically replacing the strcpy function with one line of basic C code.

Answer 5

you could use a for-loop for the entire operation ..

Answer 6

while (*(target++)) = *(source++)) ;

Answer 7

what's the for loop? klown's way works

Answer 8

hmm actually klown's way doesn't work :( but it does if you replace target and source with t and s

Answer 9

oops, sorry, i got the names mixed up. yes, replace with t and s.

Answer 10

The for-loop works the same way:

int main(void)
{
char* source = "COPYME";
char target[100];
char *s;
char *t;
for (s = source, t = target; (*t++ = *s++); );
printf(target);
return 0;
}

Answer 11

why are you not using puts() ?

Answer 12

right puts()!

Answer 13

puts is not the correct answer. That writes a string to standard output, it does not copy a string to memory.

Answer 14

or did you mean replace the printf at the end with puts?

Answer 15

Nah he's just saying why not replace printf with puts

if we are allowed variable declarations inside for-loops then we can have:

int main(void)
{
char* source = "COPYME";
char target[100];
for (char *s = source, char *t = target; (*t++ = *s++); );
puts(target);
return 0;
}

Answer 16

Ktkblown why do you think I don't know that ?

Answer 17

lol

Answer 18

because you said it

Answer 19

the printf() was part of the problem given, in the problem they were not asked to change it

Answer 20

and you misinterpreted it ...

Answer 21

cool we have the strcpy function in one line of code :-D

Answer 22

we should write libraries!

Answer 23

The question was what line do you replace the commented-line with to achieve a goal. Replacing it with 'puts' does the wrong thing. Replacing the printf with puts was not the question and still leave the original question unanswered.

Answer 24

then the problem is bad ..!! evil and agdgdgdgwngo is chanking the problem itself if you can descry that ..

Answer 25

for(int i = 0; i < 6; i++)target[i] = source[i];

Answer 26

that's not C alfie ^^

Answer 27

it is legal C (C99)

Answer 28

yeah sure but your's is not C99 if yes then where are the header-files ?

Answer 29

right mine is not C99 :(

Answer 30

Once I was very stickler in this issues ..but then I fall in love with something else..

Answer 31

Why that's not c? O_O

Answer 32

because it's more common in C++

Answer 33

declaration of variable within the loop for the loop operation.

Answer 34

Well, I study c++ @university so well... but fact a thing "is not common" doesn't mean it's not allowed nor it's not proper of a language, I guess.

Answer 35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_loop#C.2B.2B_and_C
reads: The ISO/IEC 9899:1999 publication (commonly known as C99) also allows initial declarations in for loops.

Answer 36

C99 is really not the main problem with the for() answer, the main problem is that it breaks on any other string of a different length. You could fix it by replacing the constant 6 with strlen(source), but that breaks the no-function-calls rule in the original problem.

Answer 37

There's no need to shut anyone up here, I am just trying to understand, no need to be mean nor un-polite.

Answer 38

The no function call rule is imposed by OP only .. a for loops is not generally considered as one line solution.

Answer 39

the OP said that was part of the problem, otherwise the answer would just be strcpy

Answer 40

My apologies

Answer 41

my question is evil :-P

Answer 42

But I don't like the way you put the link when I already mentioned that I am aware of C99 specific rules.

Answer 43

I've got another evil question coming up: replace 5 nested for loops with one line of C (including function calls!)

Answer 44

Shoot it but as a new question.

Answer 45

FoolForMath he was posting a reference, which was the right thing to do since there was a disagreement about the rules.

Answer 46

there was no disagreement only a misunderstanding on his behalf, I had already mentioned that things are okay in C99 but not in the archaic and perhaps the most used one

Answer 47

First this question: what is the difference between the output of the nested for-loops and the lone for-loop after the getchar()?

int main(void)
{
int i,j,k,l,m;
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
for (j = 0; j < 10; ++j)
for (k = 0; k < 10; ++k)
for (l = 0; l < 10; ++l)
for (m = 0; m < 10; ++m)
printf("%d%d%d%d%d\n", i, j, k, l, m);
getchar();
for (i = 0; i < 100000; ++i)
printf("%d\n", i);
return 0;
}

Answer 48

the first will print a 0-padded 6 digit number and the second will not

Answer 49

great. Now we must figure out how to replace that nested for-loops with one line of C code.

Answer 50

how about
printf("%06d", i)

Answer 51

Misunderstanding, disagreement, call it what you want, I just think we are on a friendly website, no need to go all "shut up" . Anyhow, you apologized, I am okay with that, I won't talk anymore about it. :) bye.

Answer 52

FoolForMath, i accept your apology as well.

Answer 53

yeah the printf works! :-D yay

Answer 54

It was not for you ktkown

Answer 55

I accept it anyway

Answer 56

int main(void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 100000; ++i) printf("%06d\n", i);
return 0;
}

Answer 57

How could you when it was not for you in the first ? It was only for alfie I haven't said anything wrong to you.

Answer 58

or even:

int main(void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 100000; printf("%06d\n", i++));
return 0;
}

Answer 59

what is that agd ?

Answer 60

it does exactly what

int main(void) { int i,j,k,l,m; for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) for (j = 0; j < 10; ++j) for (k = 0; k < 10; ++k) for (l = 0; l < 10; ++l) for (m = 0; m < 10; ++m) printf("%d%d%d%d%d\n", i, j, k, l, m); return 0;}

does

Answer 61

so ??