Implemented the code using while loop and without any relational operators

[kkaname]

I have implemented the code without using any relational operators(&& and ||) and using only while loop and break statement.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved input handling to reliably stop on newline/EOF and prevent buffer overruns for long lines.
  • Fixed output to always include a trailing newline.

• Refactor

  • Internal loop logic simplified for clearer, more predictable input processing.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Refactors the line-reading loop in chapter_2/exercise_2_02/loop.c: moves int c and int i = 0 outside the loop, replaces a guarded while with while (1) and break-based termination, relocates getchar() inside the loop, adjusts newline/EOF handling, and changes final printf to print a trailing newline.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Loop Control Flow Refactoring chapter_2/exercise_2_02/loop.c	Declares c and i before the main loop; replaces the previous guarded while with while (1) and explicit break conditions; moves getchar() into the loop body; breaks on newline or EOF (printing a trailing newline on EOF path), appends other characters to s while enforcing i < MAXLINE-1; ensures s[i] = '\0' and uses printf("%s\n", s); for output.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

• Verify EOF vs newline handling and that printing a newline on EOF matches intended behavior.
• Confirm buffer bounds check i < MAXLINE-1 prevents overflow in all paths.
• Check that s[i] = '\0' and printf("%s\n", s); produce the expected output for empty and non-empty inputs.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: implementing code using a while loop without relational operators, which matches the raw summary's description of replacing a guarded loop with while (1) and explicit break-based termination.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between cfd1076 and fab0bb2.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• chapter_2/exercise_2_02/loop.c (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• chapter_2/exercise_2_02/loop.c

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[kkaname]

@ohkimur I am really sorry for the hassle, cause this is my first PR and i am trying to learn.
so please find it to excuse me for this hassle.
But I dont get why the bot is showing an error this time since its the same code.

[ohkimur]

@coderabbitai generate

[coderabbitai]

@ohkimur: I'll review the changes in this PR now.

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[ohkimur]

@coderabbitai what's up with this finding? It seems to me irrelevant to this particular context.

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

@ohkimur: You're absolutely right! The docstring coverage check is irrelevant for this C codebase.

Docstring coverage is primarily designed for Python (and some other languages like Java/Kotlin for KDoc) where functions have structured documentation strings. C doesn't have docstrings—it uses regular comments instead. This check shouldn't be running on your C repository.

To resolve this:

You can disable the docstring coverage check for this repository by configuring CodeRabbit's settings. Here are your options:

1. Via the CodeRabbit UI: Go to your repository settings in the CodeRabbit dashboard and disable the "Docstring Coverage" check.

2. Via .coderabbit.yaml configuration: Add this to your repository's .coderabbit.yaml file:

reviews:
  tools:
    biome:
      enabled: false
    ruff:
      enabled: false

Since this is a C repository, you might also want to configure path-based instructions or disable certain automated checks that are language-specific and don't apply to C.

Would you like me to help you configure the appropriate settings for this repository?

[ohkimur]

@coderabbitai done! ✅

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

@ohkimur: Great! 🎉 The docstring coverage check should no longer appear for this C repository. Thanks for taking care of that!

If you have any other questions or need help with anything else related to this PR or CodeRabbit configuration, feel free to ask.

---

If you found this review helpful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on X?

Thank you for using CodeRabbit!

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

chapter_2/exercise_2_02/loop.c (1)

21-35: Correct implementation that meets the exercise requirements.

The logic correctly replicates the original for loop's behavior without using && or || operators. The implementation properly:

• Checks buffer bounds before reading
• Handles newline and EOF termination
• Maintains buffer safety

Optional simplification: Since each condition breaks anyway, the else if and else can be flattened:

     c = getchar();
     
     if (c == '\n') {
         break;
-    } else if (c == EOF) {
+    }
+    if (c == EOF) {
         break;
-    } else {
-        s[i++] = c;
     }
+    s[i++] = c;
 }

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c8cbf8a and cfd1076.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• chapter_2/exercise_2_02/loop.c (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (4)

chapter_2/exercise_2_02/loop.c (4)

5-14: Excellent documentation of the exercise requirements.

The comment clearly explains the K&R exercise and provides helpful context about why certain approaches (like using * instead of &&) would be unsafe due to lack of short-circuit evaluation.

---

18-19: LGTM!

Variable declarations are correctly placed outside the loop for proper scope and reuse.

---

37-37: LGTM!

String is properly null-terminated within buffer bounds.

---

39-39: LGTM!

Output statement correctly prints the null-terminated string.

[ohkimur]

@kkaname Thanks a lot for your contribution! I've added some changes myself to the code so it's a bit more explicit now. Also, I fixed the double line printing. Feel welcome to contribute more in the future with other solutions.

NOTE: Considering that both you and I forgot to run make format, I'll see if we can with minimal hustle add a commit hook so everybody that contribute in the future automatically will run make format and make lint before committing. 😅

[kkaname]

@ohkimur Hope ill be of more use and try to contribute more and in meaningfull way. Thanks a lot!