3 ms·

could do this instead, right? do { *dst = *src; *dst++; *src++; } while(*dst);

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• josefx 6y ago
  I think you are not copying the terminating nul character.
  • FartyMcFarter 6y ago
    Unless the first character was null, in which case it would be ignored by the condition... Also, you don't need to dereference a pointer in order to increase it. The grandparent post's code is just nonsensical.
    • asddubs 6y ago
      haha, I was genuinely asking if it made sense, I don't usually do C. Maybe it helped illustrate that the code is too clever for me, at least. e: I submit my revised code: do { *dst = *src; src++; dst++; } while(*(dst - 1));
      • asveikau 6y ago
        Looking at src[-1] would work but feels like poor form. My advice is stop trying to make do ... while work here, it isn't looking good. I feel like more idiomatic iterating through a string tends to loop on src not being a terminator. while (*src) { *dst = *src; ++src; ++dst; } *dst = '\0'; I feel like this is idiomatic C but needlessly verbose. Most people would combine the increment with the assignment. And most people would recognize putting it in the while condition as a common strcpy.