I've just started working through the examples, and I'm a bad person for not having gone through the Python version yet, but here's a smallish thing about ch. 4: In 4.2, the implicit declaration warning we fixed in exercise 1 has come back. This isn't what I expect (and I really mean just *me*) because my ex1.c source already has "#include <stdio.h>" from the last exercise -- yes, pretty much what I said in the last sentence. It's small, but maybe worth mentioning? Perhaps the expected state of ex1.c should be shown prior to showing the `make` output? Cheers, -- ~Dan
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 12:00:27AM -0400, Daniel Buch wrote: > I've just started working through the examples, and I'm a bad person > for not having gone through the Python version yet, but here's a > smallish thing about ch. 4: You don't have to do LPTHW if you can already code in another language, or if you think you can hack it. > In 4.2, the implicit declaration warning we fixed in exercise 1 has > come back. This isn't what I expect (and I really mean just *me*) > because my ex1.c source already has "#include <stdio.h>" from the last > exercise -- yes, pretty much what I said in the last sentence. It's > small, but maybe worth mentioning? Perhaps the expected state of > ex1.c should be shown prior to showing the `make` output? Mentioned it. Someone else said this so I put in an aside for it. -- Zed A. Shaw http://zedshaw.com/
Unsubscribe Daniel. On 4/09/2011, at 7:13 PM, "Zed A. Shaw" <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 12:00:27AM -0400, Daniel Buch wrote: >> I've just started working through the examples, and I'm a bad person >> for not having gone through the Python version yet, but here's a >> smallish thing about ch. 4: > > You don't have to do LPTHW if you can already code in another language, > or if you think you can hack it. > >> In 4.2, the implicit declaration warning we fixed in exercise 1 has >> come back. This isn't what I expect (and I really mean just *me*) >> because my ex1.c source already has "#include <stdio.h>" from the last >> exercise -- yes, pretty much what I said in the last sentence. It's >> small, but maybe worth mentioning? Perhaps the expected state of >> ex1.c should be shown prior to showing the `make` output? > > Mentioned it. Someone else said this so I put in an aside for it. > > -- > Zed A. Shaw > http://zedshaw.com/