Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: How About Disallowing Assignments In Expressions?
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:52:51 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <8734tr9ajg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <uq3s76$28dsr$1@dont-email.me> <uq93m2$3g3f$2@dont-email.me> <8734tzoli4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uq979e$40n1$1@dont-email.me> <87v86vbx6s.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <uq98lm$40n1$6@dont-email.me> <87il2vbvza.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <uqau5o$11nm8$1@dont-email.me> <uqauo4$11vps$1@dont-email.me> <uqbrjo$16jcf$6@dont-email.me> <uqg3m0$258lu$5@dont-email.me> <uqgpd1$29928$3@dont-email.me> <87il2s9fdj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <uqj95e$2qhb1$1@dont-email.me> <sEazN.324764$Wp_8.34532@fx17.iad> <86wmr6z0zg.fsf@linuxsc.com> <uql32m$3apfo$1@dont-email.me> <uqlerj$3crk6$1@dont-email.me> <uqmd23$3hv8k$5@dont-email.me> <uqog2r$mfo$1@dont-email.me> <uqojpo$1bhj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7f82d3b22f722edfb054614ec1dbacd0"; logging-data="110655"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JZJsZxC8cT3xd1Pp9E2WU"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JjhNJsejUZxr2vUygy9gi0SUtSA= sha1:vZ95bZ8qW912UQrvouMSIoIg37o=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:382605

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On 16/02/2024 20:20, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 2/15/2024 5:16 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:41:23 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can't remember the precedence relationships beyond a few very
>>>> conventional and well known ones.
>>>
>>> No need to. This is why we have documentation. Keep it handy, and
>>> don’t be
>>> ashamed to refer to it often, even in the presence of colleagues.
>> Agreed. In fact, double checking something in front of colleagues
>> might make them feel better, so to speak. Too ashamed to double
>> check something can lead to errors, bug, oh my! :^)
>
> Usually it's pretty clear what the expression should say, so whip
> parentheses in. Rerun. If behaviour changes, that was your bug. If
> not, at least you've made it clearer. But you never actually find out
> what the precedence relations are.

Is that a joke?

Would you seriously add parentheses to an expression and re-run to see
if the behavior changes *without bothering to look up the actual
precedence rules*?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */