Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!rutgers!pyrnj!pyrdc!eliot!reidc
From: reidc@eliot.UUCP (Reid Carson/Development)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: index and rindex question...
Summary: Broken index/rindex
Message-ID: <510@eliot.UUCP>
Date: 5 Feb 90 03:56:55 GMT
References: <11716.25C6818B@urchin.fidonet.org> <22236@mimsy.umd.edu>
Organization: Unitech Software, Inc., Reston, VA
Lines: 17

In article <22236@mimsy.umd.edu>, chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:

> Unless there are some *extremely* broken systems out there (this is
> always a possibility), there are no systems on which index() and rindex()
> return an int.
> 
> index and rindex, wherever present, should be EXACTLY identical to
> strchr and strrchr ...

  On at least one version of Masscomp's UNIX I've used, index/rindex exist,
as well as strchr/strrchr.  The functions work identically, EXCEPT, that
index/rindex return -1 (cast to a pointer, I suppose), in case of no match,
rather than a null pointer.  Mind, this was some time ago, and I would imagine
it's been fixed by now, but verbum sap.
-- 
Reid W. Carson (uunet!pyrdc!eliot!reidc)  -  Unitech Software, Inc.
What I tell you three times is true.