I love learning math (*to some extent*) and CS theory; good literature, and the technology that provides me with all kinds of resources for those three: the web.
The first example made perfect sense, but I struggle with for ( ; s[ t_len ] != '\0'; ++s ); line from the second one.
So, in the second version, with an example string being "hey" and target being "ey", t_len would be 2, if I understand it right. Since "ey" is not longer than "hey", we don't return false immediately. But, doesn't incrementing s until the length of target in the first for loop mean that s is now only at the last character "y". So, s[t_len] confused me.
Also, is s0 needed since it's not used here?
Sorry for asking noob questions, I'm surely missing a lot and confusing myself but trying to understand it, now even regret writing the example in the first place. Thank you for your time and patience.
You are correct: s0 is not needed. (It was left over from an earlier version.) You've also found a bug. (Even "simple" code like this can be tricky!) I've edited the code with a corrected version.
I love learning math (*to some extent*) and CS theory; good literature, and the technology that provides me with all kinds of resources for those three: the web.
The first example made perfect sense, but I struggle with
for ( ; s[ t_len ] != '\0'; ++s );line from the second one.So, in the second version, with an example string being "hey" and target being "ey",
t_lenwould be 2, if I understand it right. Since "ey" is not longer than "hey", we don't return false immediately. But, doesn't incrementingsuntil the length of target in the first for loop mean that s is now only at the last character "y". So,s[t_len]confused me.Also, is
s0needed since it's not used here?Sorry for asking noob questions, I'm surely missing a lot and confusing myself but trying to understand it, now even regret writing the example in the first place. Thank you for your time and patience.
You are correct:
s0is not needed. (It was left over from an earlier version.) You've also found a bug. (Even "simple" code like this can be tricky!) I've edited the code with a corrected version.Thank you, again, for your help. I updated the article with the correct versions.