This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C/C++ on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The last paragraph 'Evaluation order and Lazy evaluation' is almost completely wrong! Its author should read comp.lang.c FAQ list section 3, especially answer to question 3.5. Constructions like a != NULL && func(a++) do NOT invoke undefined behaviour. The writer is confusing C's short circuit evaluation to lazy evaluation which is a completely different thing. --18.104.22.168 17:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agree completely. That section was completely incorrect. I tried to fix it. Kevin Saff 14:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Your version is much better than the original! I just added one sequence point to the list. 22.214.171.124
The standard library (for which none of the header file names have been provided I might add) has nothing to do with the syntax of C. C can be used with other libraries or none at all; its syntax is independent of them. The translation of command-line arguments is the job of the linker and again has nothing to do with C syntax.
And then I find myself guilty of the same offense, so take what I said with a grain of salt.—Kbolino 05:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Function pointer example - why include parameters for command line parsing with no command line parsing needed?
This seems like a small pet peeve, but why include the arguments for command line argument parsing (int argc, char* args) in the main function of an example, like the function pointer example, where the said example doesn't use them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelsonic (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)