I just noticed that single quotes are being font-locked with warning face, throwing off fontification of the entire buffer. Does anyone know why this is is happening? For example,
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
if ( getc( stdin ) == '\n' )
//why is ^ getting font-lock-warning-face?
;
return 0;
}
Version info: emacs 26.0.50, semantic version 2.2.
Started with emacs -Q, then enabling semantic mode, M-x semantic-mode in the buffer.
Related
Everytime I use the terminal to print out a string or any kind of character, it automatically prints an "%" at the end of each line. This happens everytime I try to print something from C++ or php, havent tried other languages yet. I think it might be something with vscode, and have no idea how it came or how to fix it.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int test = 2;
int main()
{
if(test < 9999){
test = 1;
}
cout << test;
}
Output:
musti#my-mbp clus % g++ main.cpp -o tests && ./tests
1%
Also changing the cout from cout << test; to cout << test << endl; Removes the % from the output.
Are you using zsh? A line without endl is considered a "partial line", so zsh shows a color-inverted % then goes to the next line.
When a partial line is preserved, by default you will see an inverse+bold character at the end of the partial line: a ‘%’ for a normal user or a ‘#’ for root. If set, the shell parameter PROMPT_EOL_MARK can be used to customize how the end of partial lines are shown.
More information is available in their docs.
The C++ code has
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
and I want one of my arguments to be tab (ASCII character 9). How do I do this? (This is on a Windows 10).
In powershell: Type for this argument: quote, ALT + NUM 009 , quote. That's, type " then press and hold ALT then type 009 on the numeric pad then release ALT then type ".
This will be echoed like:
your-command arg1 "^I" arg2
When I execute the below code, why am I getting '?' for the first case? AFAIK, codepage 932 supports line draw characters.
How does this API deal with codepages? AFAIK, it searches and maps the character in the codepage, then returns the position of the character from the codepage.
typedef struct dbcs {
unsigned char HighByte;
unsigned char LowByte;
} DBCS;
static DBCS set[5] = {0x25,0x5D};
unsigned char array[2];
#include <windows.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
// printf("hello world");
int str_size;
LPCWSTR charpntr;
LPSTR getcd;
LPBOOL flg;
int i ;
array[0] = set[0].LowByte;
array[1] = set[0].HighByte;
charpntr = &array;
str_size = WideCharToMultiByte(932, 0, charpntr, 1, getcd, 2, NULL, NULL);
printf(" value of %u", getcd);
printf("number of bytes %d character is %s", str_size, getcd);
printf("\n");
array[0] = set[0].LowByte;
array[1] = set[0].HighByte;
charpntr = &array;
str_size = WideCharToMultiByte(437, 0, charpntr, 1, getcd, 2, NULL, NULL);
printf(" value of %u", getcd);
printf("number of bytes %d character is %s", str_size, getcd);
printf("\n");
}
Result of execution in CodeBlocks:
Windows codepage 932 is not a simple thing - as it uses multibyte characters.
I have no Windows here, so I have been experimenting with the encoding of the character you are using in Python3, in an UTF-8 terminal: it works fine with cp437 and UTF-8, but Python refuses to encode the character to what it calls "cp932", or any of its aliases listed in the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page_932_(Microsoft_Windows)
It may be a fault in Python's internal Unicode tables (fetched directly from the Unicode consortium), or possibly, this codepage don't map this character at all.
Anyway, there are problems in your code: one is that you never initialize getcd. Reading the docs for WideCharToMultiByte(), one see it should not be set to NULL, so you have to have the proper return buffer allocated there.
So, try putting the getcd declaration as:
char getcd[6]={};
That should give you enough space for even the widest characters you experiment with, and include a string \x00 terminator.
And another thing is that if these line drawing characters are present in CP932, they are definitely multibyte - thus the cbMultiByte parameter for the call (the "1" after charptr) should be set to at least 2. If no other error kicks in, and the char exists in cp932, this alone might fix your issue.
I have made an .exe file (echo_eof.exe) which is written in C.
The code goes like this:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int ch;
while ((ch = getchar()) != EOF)
putchar(ch);
}
Then I typed echo_eof < words.txt in Windows cmd where words.txt is written as
Hello world!
The command output is
Hello world!
I have never typed EOF in the text file but it seems like EOF is hidden in the text file. Is this true? If it is, is there a way to see the hidden EOF in the text file?
If your reading function is at the end of the file and can't get another symbol (probably char), then it gets told that you have reached EOF.
This is not in the file, it is a signal from the filehandler.
I made the following lex program to count the Number of words in a Textfile. A 'Word' for me is any string that starts with an alphabet and is followed by 0 or more occurrence of alphabets/numbers/_ .
%{
int words;
%}
%%
[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_]* {words++; printf("%s %d\n",yytext,words);}
. ;
%%
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
if(argc == 2)
{
yyin = fopen(argv[1], "r");
yylex();
printf("No. of Words : %d\n",words);
fclose(yyin);
}
else
printf("Invalid No. of Arguments\n");
return 0;
}
The Problem is that for the following Textfile, I am getting the No. of Words : 13. I tried printing the yytext and it shows that it is taking 'manav' from '9manav' as a word even though it doesnot match my definition of a word.
I also tried including [0-9][a-zA-Z0-9_]* ; within my code but still shows the same output. I want to know why is this happening and possible ways to avoid it.
Textfile : -
the quick brown fox jumps right over the lazy dog cout for
9manav
-99-7-5 32 69 99 +1
First, the manav is perfectly matching your definition of word. The 9 in front of it is matched by the . rule. Remember, that white space is not special in lex.
You had the right idea by adding another rule [0-9][a-zA-Z0-9_]* ; but since the ruleset is ambiguous (there are several ways to match the input) order of the rules matters. It's a while I worked with lex but I think putting the new rule before the word rule should work.