C / C++ / MFC

Stuart Dootson wrote:

how on earth could you possibly find anything like that on the internet

1. Call multiple in the loop and remove the loop in multiple:
   

   /* Program that reads a pair of numbers and determines whether the second number is multiple of the first one */
   
   #include <stdio.h>
   
   int multiple ( int j, int z); /* function prototype */
   
   int main( void ) /* function main begins program execution */
   {
      int num1, num2, x, i; /* declare variables */
   
      for ( x = 1; x <= 5; x++ )
      {	
         printf( "Enter the first number:" ); /* prompt for input */
         scanf("%d", &num1 ); /* read number from user */
   
         if ( num1 != 0)
         {
            printf( "Enter the second number:" ); /* prompt for input */
            scanf("%d", &num2 ); /* read number from user */
         } 
         else
         {
            break;
            printf( "\nBroke from loop because num1 must be greater than 0\n" ); /* break loop if num1 = = 0 */
         }
         multiple( num1, num2);
      }
   
      return 0;
   }
   
   int multiple ( int j, int z ) /* copy of the argment to function */
   {	
      int result;
   
      result = z % j;
   
      if( result == 0)
      {
         printf( "%d is multiple of %d\n", z, j );
      }
      else
      {
         printf( "%d is not multiple of %d\n", z, j );
      }
         return result;
   } /* end of multiple function */

2. Gather the numbers into two arrays and process them in one call to multiple:
   

   /* Program that reads a pair of numbers and determines whether the second number is multiple of the first one */
   
   #include <stdio.h>
   
   int multiple ( int* j, int* z, int n); /* function prototype */
   
   int main( void ) /* function main begins program execution */
   {
      int num1[5] = {0};
      int num2[5] = {0};
      int x, i; /* declare variables */
   
      for ( x = 1; x <= 5; x++ )
      {	
         printf( "Enter the first number:" ); /* prompt for input */
         scanf("%d", &(num1[x-1]) ); /* read number from user */
   
         if ( num1[x-1] != 0)
         {
            printf( "Enter the second number:" ); /* prompt for input */
            scanf("%d", &(num2[x-1]) ); /* read number from user */
         } 
         else
         {
            break;
            printf( "\nBroke from loop because num1 must be greater than 0\n" ); /* break loop if num1 = = 0 */
         }
      }
   
      multiple( num1, num2, x-1);
   
      return 0;
   }
   
   int multiple ( int* j, int* z, int numValues) /* copy of the argment to function */
   {	
      int y; /* counter */
   
      int result;
   
   
      for (y=0;y<numValues;++y)
      {
         result = z[y] % j[y];
         if( result == 0)
         {
            printf( "%d is multiple of %d\n", z[y], j[y] );
         }
         else
         {
            printf( "%d is not multiple of %d\n", z[y], j[y] );
         }
      }
      return result;
   } /* end of multiple function */

Personally, I prefer the first one - why mess with arrays when you don't have to?


Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p

• you're treating num1 and num2 in main (as well as j and z in multiple) like they where array elements, but, in fact, they aren't.
• in the array-like scenario, the break on num1==0 is inappropriate, that 'exceptional' input would be better handled inside the multiple function (possibly with a continue).
• the line
  

  raeiko wrote:

  printf( "\nBroke from loop because num1 must be greater than 0\n" );

  
  is wrong: you're simply rejecting num1==0, i.e. you code accepts negative num1 values.
As already suggested by Stuart Dootson, would be probably better abandoning the array-like design: make multiply function acting on just two operands and call it inside the input loop.



If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.

This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke

[My articles]

simon alec smith wrote:

can anybody explain maybe why this is not working.

1. call FindResource or FindResourceEx with the resource name to get the resource handle;
2. call LoadResource with the resource handle to get the global handle;
3. call LockResource with the global handle to get a pointer to the resource data.

santiageitorx wrote:

Is it possible to avoid the Microsoft Visual c++ Runtimes when running a program compiled with Visual Studio 2008?

Stuart Dootson wrote:

To paraphrase led mike - link statically with the CRT!!!