After submitting, I was embarrassed when I compared my solution to other people's elegant 4 liners.

But then I had another look at my code and it captures exactly how I thought about the problem. I think I would be happy to write code like this in an interview.

Thank you for doing the job of compiling(pun intended) the entries. :)

I, for one, am looking forward to the summary.

Sorry - forgot ...

If you reply to me, please quote your submission reference to make my life easier.

Why not submit it?

Of course, you'd better check it first, since it doesn't actually work.

EDIT: Ah - I see you've edited it, but without saying you've done so. It still doesn't work.

EDIT2: It's also bad form to put code here when others might want the challenge of trying it themselves.

The only meaningful edit I made was a ; after the do{}while(). All of the other edits were just for formating sake. Didn't think it a bother.

Where should I submit it?

I see you've submitted it - thanks.

I also note that you didn't put BEGIN and END as I asked, you sent it as HTML text, as I specifically asked not, you sent it not to the address in my profile, you didn't include the anti-spam measure, and your code doesn't work.

Color me grumpy.

Submit it where?

What better way to comment than to quote Rider himself:

Those who do produce similar code, those who don't have a clear accent, and speak with varying degrees of fluency.

What can I say, after C every other language is just adding idioms.

You never forget your first love. Oh others came before her, and after, but no one can replace her or what she taught you.

That's quite poetic considering your C is far from idiomatic.

Surely manipulating pointers would be the expected way of doing this, and probably easier to optimise for the compiler.

Because array syntax is clearer (to me), does the exact same thing, and the speed of a computer doubles every 24 months but programmers don't.

I'm not picking on you, but this is a common sentiment among many programmers that really aggravates the hell out of me. Because of that kind of thinking, lots and lots of people are being forced to replace perfectly good hardware just to be able to run software "designed" for newer systems. The expected benefits from Moore's Law are nearly nonexistent, except for a few specific niches.

> Because of that kind of thinking, lots and lots of people are being forced to replace perfectly good hardware just to be able to run software "designed" for newer systems.

Feature, not a bug (for the providers, anyway).

It doesn't actually do the exact same thing:

http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html