- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Edit Admin
This is TRWTF. The addendum "too much" after "think" is of no importance, and in any event isn't correct. It should be dropped in favour of "enough" or even "at all". And that's bad, because building software is a task for people who think about what they are doing.
Admin
So, two WTFs for the price of one. On the one hand, "every version is 1.0!" On the other hand, "Yeah, we'll just check if one of the strings has ran out, not like file names will get longer/shorter between versions."
I just hope that the latest "1.0" version (minus the old backup) doesn't introduce a boatload of new issues, it looks like they have plenty already.
Edit Admin
For when your company's software is so well-written that you decide to create your own problems.
Edit Admin
Makes me wonder what actually gets updated between software "versions"
Admin
If so, this would be serious, but I don't see it. I suppose you're referring to the lack of an explicit "*p2 != '\0'" check, but "*p2 >= '0'" (note: digit '0', which is different from and greater than NUL) also serves this purpose. So if p2 is at the end of the string, it will either (if p1 is too) reach the final return (which is fine, reading the NUL at the end of the strings), or (if p1 is a digit) reach the "return 1", otherwise "*p1 != *p2" will be true and it will reach the second-last return. It might not be the clearest control flow, but I don't see any case where p2 is incremented beyond the terminating NUL. Am I missing something?