Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #77859 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-04 16:06 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-10 10:00 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 400 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 16:06 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-05 13:15 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 16:19 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-05 01:18 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-04 20:33 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 07:55 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-05 09:09 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 11:40 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-06 23:33 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-06 23:10 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-06 15:34 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 10:14 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-06 16:11 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-07 00:27 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 01:15 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 00:13 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 01:26 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-07 14:51 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-07 02:25 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-07 15:55 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 11:13 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-07 11:32 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 12:55 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-07 12:14 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 12:29 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 13:49 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 13:47 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-07 14:11 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@antispam.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-12-13 00:39 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-13 01:17 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-12 18:21 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-13 08:31 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 15:12 +0530
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-13 03:40 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-13 11:41 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-07 12:55 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-07 11:46 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-08 01:07 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-07 09:11 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 15:26 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-07 08:25 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-07 13:59 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-07 09:06 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 14:12 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-07 08:36 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-07 21:01 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-07 15:16 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2015-12-08 13:58 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-07 12:11 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 11:06 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 13:02 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 14:37 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 15:17 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 21:39 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 23:04 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-08 01:19 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-08 01:12 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-08 09:11 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 17:19 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 22:50 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-08 01:26 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-08 01:27 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 17:22 +0530
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-09 13:15 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-08 07:54 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 23:41 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-07 17:50 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-07 19:43 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 23:14 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-12-22 06:45 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-07 12:00 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 09:04 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 19:59 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 12:14 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 12:45 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 19:56 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 01:58 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 11:48 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 19:09 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 19:41 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 23:26 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 11:38 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 02:52 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 13:04 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 05:10 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 13:57 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:20 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:42 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 17:19 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 09:27 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 17:41 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 09:46 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 09:50 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 18:09 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 10:17 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-07 10:21 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 15:33 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:50 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-12-07 13:43 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 10:54 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-07 11:00 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 13:07 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-07 04:19 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-07 13:58 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-07 12:32 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 20:57 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-08 00:10 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-07 15:40 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-08 12:55 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-08 00:43 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-08 01:28 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-08 01:53 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-08 16:44 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-08 17:47 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-08 10:46 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-08 19:27 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-08 12:30 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-08 12:37 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-08 21:47 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-08 23:20 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-09 01:15 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-09 02:07 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-09 13:24 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-09 14:54 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-09 15:20 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-09 07:59 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-09 21:43 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-09 08:45 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-12-22 06:45 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-08 19:20 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-10 21:01 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-10 16:31 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-10 14:03 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-11 02:16 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 10:20 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-11 02:24 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 10:39 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-11 03:20 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 12:02 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2015-12-11 13:06 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-10 21:46 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-11 10:57 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-10 22:09 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-11 11:22 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-10 17:27 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-10 23:07 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-11 00:11 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 00:25 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-11 01:42 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 02:36 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 02:55 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 20:04 +0530
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-11 02:22 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 10:33 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2015-12-11 13:28 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-11 12:30 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-11 11:23 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 12:38 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-11 14:21 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 14:55 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-11 15:19 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-11 15:28 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-11 08:46 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-11 12:18 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-11 12:27 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-11 17:30 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-11 08:51 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-17 10:55 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-17 11:24 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-11 18:04 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-12 08:58 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-11 22:08 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-12 11:32 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-11 22:48 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-12 11:57 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-11 15:33 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-11 23:43 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-11 20:37 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-11 23:23 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-12 00:01 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-12 02:15 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-12 11:15 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-13 00:52 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-13 02:05 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-12 18:35 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-13 13:35 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-13 11:48 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-13 20:36 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-13 13:14 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 21:38 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-13 22:35 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-13 14:48 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-13 23:05 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-13 18:08 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-13 15:44 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-14 00:42 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-13 19:48 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 06:58 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-14 00:04 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-14 12:12 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-14 08:07 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-14 17:23 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-14 10:58 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-14 12:29 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-14 14:52 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-14 19:37 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-14 20:33 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-15 09:45 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-14 13:16 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-14 21:34 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-14 21:45 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-14 22:00 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-14 22:23 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-14 14:41 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-14 23:38 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 00:50 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-14 17:00 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-15 01:20 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 11:41 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-15 04:03 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 12:47 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-15 05:42 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 14:11 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-15 06:24 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-15 17:13 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-15 08:57 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-15 11:05 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-16 03:52 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-16 05:38 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 22:30 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-16 11:17 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 05:38 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-16 15:02 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 06:10 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-16 14:47 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:09 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-16 08:11 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 09:04 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 09:21 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-16 15:19 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-16 07:33 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-16 15:34 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-16 15:54 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-16 21:11 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-16 22:36 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-16 15:33 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix ais523 <ais523@nethack4.org> - 2015-12-24 09:02 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-25 09:12 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix ais523 <ais523@nethack4.org> - 2015-12-28 07:15 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-27 18:40 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-17 00:39 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-17 02:22 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-12-16 11:00 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-16 16:06 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-16 08:52 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-16 21:24 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-16 16:04 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-17 00:55 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 19:45 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-17 01:54 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-12-16 22:43 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-17 04:34 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-12-17 08:46 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-16 23:45 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-17 16:14 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-17 14:12 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-17 22:42 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-17 18:21 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-17 18:43 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-18 00:21 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-17 17:01 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-12-16 22:38 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-17 06:25 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-17 17:10 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-17 15:04 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-17 17:24 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-16 12:26 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-16 14:46 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-16 07:14 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:28 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-16 15:28 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-16 07:40 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-16 16:58 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-16 09:02 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-17 13:58 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-17 09:38 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-17 12:31 -0600
Re: Prefix and postfix raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-17 21:07 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-18 11:35 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-18 11:12 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-19 15:08 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-19 19:36 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-19 21:08 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-20 00:48 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-20 09:51 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-19 12:09 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-19 23:13 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-19 14:50 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-19 17:18 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-19 14:56 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-19 18:04 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 05:12 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-19 21:42 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-20 09:42 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-20 08:54 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-21 17:04 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-21 18:34 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-22 15:47 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2015-12-22 07:09 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-22 21:56 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-12-22 12:12 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-12-22 06:49 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-12-22 14:44 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 05:13 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-20 21:45 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-20 19:04 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-21 10:51 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-21 12:22 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 21:49 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-20 06:36 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-20 18:42 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-20 15:28 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-20 09:17 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-21 08:10 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-21 08:06 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-20 19:58 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "D. Lowe" <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> - 2015-12-20 21:16 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "D. Lowe" <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> - 2015-12-20 21:22 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-20 16:39 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix "D. Lowe" <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> - 2015-12-20 21:57 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-18 11:18 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-18 11:50 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-18 04:04 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-18 22:56 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-18 20:28 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-19 22:13 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-12-18 09:31 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-18 08:44 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-19 12:44 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-19 11:59 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-19 15:18 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 11:32 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-20 09:58 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-16 17:05 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-16 21:27 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-17 02:39 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-16 08:20 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-16 15:52 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-16 18:51 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-16 08:19 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-17 00:16 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-15 11:07 +1300
Re: Prefix and postfix Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-14 19:53 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 01:14 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-14 20:42 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-12-14 20:50 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 02:00 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-12-14 21:27 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 10:45 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 03:20 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-12-15 08:25 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 14:38 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-12-15 11:12 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-15 08:53 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 18:10 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-15 11:50 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 20:13 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-15 13:21 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-15 22:13 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-15 16:40 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-16 01:48 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-15 23:56 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-16 11:38 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-16 14:11 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-15 17:23 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-16 02:51 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-14 08:18 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-14 09:10 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-14 09:22 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-14 12:28 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-14 09:41 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-14 11:13 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 12:42 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-14 09:05 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-13 12:24 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-13 13:17 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-11 19:56 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-11 20:09 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-12-11 12:44 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-11 21:52 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-13 20:25 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2015-12-11 12:58 -0500
Re: Prefix and postfix supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-08 11:54 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-09 11:59 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-08 09:41 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-08 09:45 +0100
Re: Prefix and postfix Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-07 00:31 +0000
Re: Prefix and postfix John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 08:56 -0800
Re: Prefix and postfix "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 10:00 -0800
Page 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 11:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n43pfv$v8r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78025 |
On 07/12/2015 02:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: > By the way, presumably you don't take /all/ assignments out of /all/ > expressions, or you'd end up using memcpy a heck of a lot! In a language where 'a=b' doesn't return a value, then: a = b; is not an expression, but a statement. (The part to the right of '=' is an expression, and the bit to the left of '=' is a term of an expression, but the whole thing would be a statement.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 11:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n43qke$409$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78050 |
On 07/12/15 11:13, BartC wrote: > On 07/12/2015 02:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> By the way, presumably you don't take /all/ assignments out of /all/ >> expressions, or you'd end up using memcpy a heck of a lot! > > In a language where 'a=b' doesn't return a value, then: > > a = b; > > is not an expression, but a statement. In C, however, which is the language we talk about in comp.lang.c, a is an expression (actually a primary expression), b is an expression (also a primary expression), and a = b is an expression (an assignment expression). The semicolon terminates the statement, but does not render the statement expressionless. Removing assignments from all expressions would therefore require removing the assignment from this assignment expression, leaving us with a b; which is meaningless in C and would need to be replaced with memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof b); - hardly an improvement. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 12:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n43ruv$8l2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78054 |
On 07/12/15 12:32, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 07/12/15 11:13, BartC wrote: >> On 07/12/2015 02:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >>> By the way, presumably you don't take /all/ assignments out of /all/ >>> expressions, or you'd end up using memcpy a heck of a lot! >> >> In a language where 'a=b' doesn't return a value, then: >> >> a = b; >> >> is not an expression, but a statement. > > In C, however, which is the language we talk about in comp.lang.c, a is > an expression (actually a primary expression), b is an expression (also > a primary expression), and a = b is an expression (an assignment > expression). The semicolon terminates the statement, but does not render > the statement expressionless. > > Removing assignments from all expressions would therefore require > removing the assignment from this assignment expression, leaving us with > a b; which is meaningless in C and would need to be replaced with > memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof b); - hardly an improvement. > I don't think anyone is suggesting removing assignment entirely (it could be done, of course - pure functional languages don't have assignment of this sort. But that would be a completely different language). But you could make a language that is very much like C, with the only difference being that assignment is a statement and not an expression. Then "a" is an expression, "b" is an expression, but "a = b" is a statement - you could no longer write "a = b = c;" or "if (a = b)...".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 12:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n43t3b$cpf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78056 |
On 07/12/15 11:55, David Brown wrote: > On 07/12/15 12:32, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 07/12/15 11:13, BartC wrote: >>> On 07/12/2015 02:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>>> By the way, presumably you don't take /all/ assignments out of /all/ >>>> expressions, or you'd end up using memcpy a heck of a lot! >>> >>> In a language where 'a=b' doesn't return a value, then: >>> >>> a = b; >>> >>> is not an expression, but a statement. >> >> In C, however, which is the language we talk about in comp.lang.c, a is >> an expression (actually a primary expression), b is an expression (also >> a primary expression), and a = b is an expression (an assignment >> expression). The semicolon terminates the statement, but does not render >> the statement expressionless. >> >> Removing assignments from all expressions would therefore require >> removing the assignment from this assignment expression, leaving us with >> a b; which is meaningless in C and would need to be replaced with >> memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof b); - hardly an improvement. >> > > I don't think anyone is suggesting removing assignment entirely Well, it was you who said that you removed all assignments from all expressions. I accept, of course, that you did not intend that claim to be taken entirely literally, but BartC was replying to my reply to that claim, so that was my jumping off point for the reply to which you have just replied, your reply being the reply to which I am now replying. I trust I am making myself unclear? :-) > (it > could be done, of course - pure functional languages don't have > assignment of this sort. But that would be a completely different > language). It would. And that's fine in comp.programming, but in comp.lang.c it suggests that we are veering off-topic. > But you could make a language that is very much like C, with the only > difference being that assignment is a statement and not an expression. > Then "a" is an expression, "b" is an expression, but "a = b" is a > statement - you could no longer write "a = b = c;" or "if (a = b)...". In which case it would perhaps not be /very/ much like C. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n43tu6$fgc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78060 |
On 07/12/2015 12:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 07/12/15 11:55, David Brown wrote: >> But you could make a language that is very much like C, with the only >> difference being that assignment is a statement and not an expression. >> Then "a" is an expression, "b" is an expression, but "a = b" is a >> statement - you could no longer write "a = b = c;" or "if (a = b)...". > > In which case it would perhaps not be /very/ much like C. A program in such a language, however, would still be legal C, would compile as normal, and be understood by any C programmer. So it would be very much like C. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 13:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n43v4f$k0r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78063 |
On 07/12/15 13:33, Stefan Ram wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 07/12/2015 12:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 07/12/15 11:55, David Brown wrote:
>>>> but "a = b" is a statement
>> A program in such a language, however, would still be legal C
>
> A compound statement in such a language would be »{ a = b }«,
> but C requires »{ a = b; }«. So, it would not be legal C.
>
That is, at most, a minor issue. Insist that the "assignment statement"
be terminated with a semicolon just like an expression statement, and
you are done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 13:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n43v0g$k0r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78060 |
On 07/12/15 13:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 07/12/15 11:55, David Brown wrote: >> On 07/12/15 12:32, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 07/12/15 11:13, BartC wrote: >>>> On 07/12/2015 02:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> >>>>> By the way, presumably you don't take /all/ assignments out of /all/ >>>>> expressions, or you'd end up using memcpy a heck of a lot! >>>> >>>> In a language where 'a=b' doesn't return a value, then: >>>> >>>> a = b; >>>> >>>> is not an expression, but a statement. >>> >>> In C, however, which is the language we talk about in comp.lang.c, a is >>> an expression (actually a primary expression), b is an expression (also >>> a primary expression), and a = b is an expression (an assignment >>> expression). The semicolon terminates the statement, but does not render >>> the statement expressionless. >>> >>> Removing assignments from all expressions would therefore require >>> removing the assignment from this assignment expression, leaving us with >>> a b; which is meaningless in C and would need to be replaced with >>> memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof b); - hardly an improvement. >>> >> >> I don't think anyone is suggesting removing assignment entirely > > Well, it was you who said that you removed all assignments from all > expressions. I accept, of course, that you did not intend that claim to > be taken entirely literally, but BartC was replying to my reply to that > claim, so that was my jumping off point for the reply to which you have > just replied, your reply being the reply to which I am now replying. I > trust I am making myself unclear? :-) Perfectly - clear as mud, as me ol' Gran would say. I actually said "I think it would have been much easier if C didn't have return values from assignment or increment", which of course is also wrong because assignments are expressions that /have/ a value, they don't /return/ a value. Perhaps the assignment operator should be an expression with type void... > >> (it >> could be done, of course - pure functional languages don't have >> assignment of this sort. But that would be a completely different >> language). > > It would. And that's fine in comp.programming, but in comp.lang.c it > suggests that we are veering off-topic. > >> But you could make a language that is very much like C, with the only >> difference being that assignment is a statement and not an expression. >> Then "a" is an expression, "b" is an expression, but "a = b" is a >> statement - you could no longer write "a = b = c;" or "if (a = b)...". > > In which case it would perhaps not be /very/ much like C. > Yes, it would be /very/ like C. I don't believe I would have to make any changes to most of my code if "a = b" were a statement and not an expression. Other people, such as yourself, would have to make a few changes - but none of them difficult, and none of them significantly changing the flavour of the language. I can see that you wouldn't want to make such a change to the language, which is fair enough, of course. But it would not mean a big change to most code (except line noise code, for some highly subjective and vague definition of "line noise").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n44424$q17$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #78068 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 07/12/15 13:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: (snip, someone wrote) >>> I don't think anyone is suggesting removing assignment entirely >> Well, it was you who said that you removed all assignments from all >> expressions. I accept, of course, that you did not intend that claim to >> be taken entirely literally, but BartC was replying to my reply to that >> claim, so that was my jumping off point for the reply to which you have >> just replied, your reply being the reply to which I am now replying. I >> trust I am making myself unclear? :-) Seems to me that C and its predecessors were the first to allow expressions as statements. Other languages have followed to be easier to use by C programmers. > Perfectly - clear as mud, as me ol' Gran would say. > I actually said "I think it would have been much easier if C didn't have > return values from assignment or increment", which of course is also > wrong because assignments are expressions that /have/ a value, they > don't /return/ a value. For comparison, Fortran and PL/I, two languages that had at least some influence on C, assignments don't have a value. PL/I allows for multiple assignment with a comma: a, b, c=3; Since PL/I uses = for both assignment and as a relational operator, assignments can't have a value. In PL/I a = b = c; assigns a the (possible converted) value of '0'B or '1'B (that is, length one bit string). >> It would. And that's fine in comp.programming, but in comp.lang.c it >> suggests that we are veering off-topic. To me, comparison of language features, either with other languages or with propose languages, for the purpose of better understanding the C features is on topic. For example, as potential additions to future C standards, or even possible removal. (snip) >> In which case it would perhaps not be /very/ much like C. > Yes, it would be /very/ like C. I don't believe I would have to make > any changes to most of my code if "a = b" were a statement and not an > expression. Other people, such as yourself, would have to make a few > changes - but none of them difficult, and none of them significantly > changing the flavour of the language. Seems to me that Java was intentionally made to be C-like in many ways, to encourage C programmers to use it. On the other hand, when they did deviate, they did it for good reasons, or at least what were believed to be good reasons. Most often, I find it more useful to compare against other languages, with much thought having gone into the features of those languages, and especially that they are implementable. > I can see that you wouldn't want to make such a change to the language, > which is fair enough, of course. But it would not mean a big change to > most code (except line noise code, for some highly subjective and vague > definition of "line noise"). -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@antispam.uni.wroc.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 00:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4ienl$90r$2@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #78083 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> > On 07/12/15 13:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> (snip, someone wrote)
> >>> I don't think anyone is suggesting removing assignment entirely
>
> >> Well, it was you who said that you removed all assignments from all
> >> expressions. I accept, of course, that you did not intend that claim to
> >> be taken entirely literally, but BartC was replying to my reply to that
> >> claim, so that was my jumping off point for the reply to which you have
> >> just replied, your reply being the reply to which I am now replying. I
> >> trust I am making myself unclear? :-)
>
> Seems to me that C and its predecessors were the first to allow
> expressions as statements.
Lisp was earlier and go further: in List everything is an
expression.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 01:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4igs8$kb3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78507 |
On 13/12/2015 00:39, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> On 07/12/15 13:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >> (snip, someone wrote) >>>>> I don't think anyone is suggesting removing assignment entirely >> >>>> Well, it was you who said that you removed all assignments from all >>>> expressions. I accept, of course, that you did not intend that claim to >>>> be taken entirely literally, but BartC was replying to my reply to that >>>> claim, so that was my jumping off point for the reply to which you have >>>> just replied, your reply being the reply to which I am now replying. I >>>> trust I am making myself unclear? :-) >> >> Seems to me that C and its predecessors were the first to allow >> expressions as statements. > > Lisp was earlier and go further: in List everything is an > expression. In Lisp, everything is everything. A very strange language. But in C, I suspect that expressions are allowed as statements mainly to make use of those terms that have side-effects, that is: * Increment * Assignment and compound assignment * Function calls. Having: a+b; doesn't seem to be of any particular use. I suppose: f()+1; might have side-effects, but where does the result of the add go? Maybe it was just easier to have any expression as a statement than to specify particular forms of expressions. But it means some kinds of errors won't get picked up: type "f;" instead of "f();", and the function doesn't get called (as you discover hours later!). -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 18:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnvb83f5r2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #78511 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 13/12/2015 00:39, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> On 07/12/15 13:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip, someone wrote)
>>>>>> I don't think anyone is suggesting removing assignment entirely
>>>
>>>>> Well, it was you who said that you removed all assignments from all
>>>>> expressions. I accept, of course, that you did not intend that claim to
>>>>> be taken entirely literally, but BartC was replying to my reply to that
>>>>> claim, so that was my jumping off point for the reply to which you have
>>>>> just replied, your reply being the reply to which I am now replying. I
>>>>> trust I am making myself unclear? :-)
>>>
>>> Seems to me that C and its predecessors were the first to allow
>>> expressions as statements.
>>
>> Lisp was earlier and go further: in List everything is an
>> expression.
>
> In Lisp, everything is everything. A very strange language.
No, everything is not everything. Everything is an expression.
> But in C, I suspect that expressions are allowed as statements mainly to
> make use of those terms that have side-effects, that is:
>
> * Increment
> * Assignment and compound assignment
> * Function calls.
Yes.
> Having:
>
> a+b;
>
> doesn't seem to be of any particular use. I suppose:
It might if a and be were volatile, but the result of the addition is
discarded. In most cases, yes, the statement `a+b;` is useless.
> f()+1;
>
> might have side-effects, but where does the result of the add go?
It's discarded. `f();` has the same effect.
> Maybe it was just easier to have any expression as a statement than to
> specify particular forms of expressions.
Exactly.
> But it means some kinds of
> errors won't get picked up: type "f;" instead of "f();", and the
> function doesn't get called (as you discover hours later!).
Unless your compiler warns you about it. gcc doesn't by default,
but it does if you specify "-Wall". I presume other compilers can
also be coaxed to warn about it.
To an experienced C programmer, seeing a lower-case identifier
followed by a semicolon as an entire statement is likely to be a
red flag. (An all-caps identifier is probably a macro.) If you're
accustomed to some non-C language in which parameterless function
calls don't take parentheses (Pascal and Ada are two examples that
spring to mind), it can be easy to miss.
The lack of warnings issued by gcc and other C compilers in their
default mode is IMHO regrettable. The solution is to enable more
warnings than the default.
C doesn't generally stop you from doing useless things. Using an
expression as an entire statement (by adding a semicolon) is *often*
useful, so the language *always* permits it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 08:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4ja9a$j1j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78519 |
On 13/12/15 02:21, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 13/12/2015 00:39, Waldek Hebisch wrote: <snip> >>> Lisp was earlier and go further: in List everything is an >>> expression. >> >> In Lisp, everything is everything. A very strange language. > > No, everything is not everything. Everything is an expression. But Keith, it's a syllogism. In Lisp, everything is an expression. In Lisp, expressions are everything. *THEREFORE*: In Lisp, everything is everything. (Or possibly everything /are/ everything.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 15:12 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <87oadu3crj.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #78524 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 13/12/15 02:21, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> In Lisp, everything is everything. A very strange language.
>>
>> No, everything is not everything. Everything is an expression.
>
> But Keith, it's a syllogism.
>
> In Lisp, everything is an expression.
> In Lisp, expressions are everything.
> *THEREFORE*: In Lisp, everything is everything. (Or possibly everything
> /are/ everything.)
It also follows that:
In Lisp, expressions are expressions.
--
Udyant Wig
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 03:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnegeqfug1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #78524 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 13/12/15 02:21, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 13/12/2015 00:39, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Lisp was earlier and go further: in List everything is an
>>>> expression.
>>>
>>> In Lisp, everything is everything. A very strange language.
>>
>> No, everything is not everything. Everything is an expression.
>
> But Keith, it's a syllogism.
>
> In Lisp, everything is an expression.
> In Lisp, expressions are everything.
> *THEREFORE*: In Lisp, everything is everything. (Or possibly
> everything /are/ everything.)
All syllogisms have three parts.
Therefore this is not a syllogism.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 11:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4jlcu$mlh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78519 |
On 13/12/2015 02:21, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> In Lisp, everything is everything. A very strange language. > > No, everything is not everything. Everything is an expression. And a statement. And a function. And a macro. And data. All interchangeable as far as I can make out. >> But in C, I suspect that expressions are allowed as statements mainly to >> make use of those terms that have side-effects, that is: >> >> * Increment >> * Assignment and compound assignment >> * Function calls. > > Yes. > >> Having: >> >> a+b; >> >> doesn't seem to be of any particular use. I suppose: > > It might if a and be were volatile, but the result of the addition is > discarded. In most cases, yes, the statement `a+b;` is useless. An old language of mine (the first one I think, modelled a little after Algol68 but created for low-level work), also had expressions that could be used as statements, but also statements that could appear anywhere that an expression or sub-expression was allowed. There, a+b was evaluated and left in a register. This was useful for any inline assembly that followed. >> f()+1; >> >> might have side-effects, but where does the result of the add go? > > It's discarded. `f();` has the same effect. > >> Maybe it was just easier to have any expression as a statement than to >> specify particular forms of expressions. > > Exactly. Well, I have since dropped the interchangeability of statements and expressions. The ability was rarely used, except for the three uses I listed above. It wasn't too hard (I don't know about creating a formal grammar but it can't be impossible). (If I do want to evaluate 'a+b', I have to write 'load a+b'.) >> But it means some kinds of >> errors won't get picked up: type "f;" instead of "f();", and the >> function doesn't get called (as you discover hours later!). > > Unless your compiler warns you about it. gcc doesn't by default, > but it does if you specify "-Wall". I presume other compilers can > also be coaxed to warn about it. I found this invaluable (in my non-C syntax), for detecting when I accidentally wrote 'a=b' as a statement rather than 'a:=b'. > To an experienced C programmer, seeing a lower-case identifier > followed by a semicolon as an entire statement is likely to be a > red flag. (An all-caps identifier is probably a macro.) If you're > accustomed to some non-C language in which parameterless function > calls don't take parentheses (Pascal and Ada are two examples that > spring to mind), it can be easy to miss. I also switched from using just 'f' for such a function or procedure call, to using the C-style 'f()'. Now I find old code using just 'f' very confusing: is f a variable, or is it a function call? (Or a goto, as I'd also allowed writing 'lab' instead of 'goto lab', another Algol 68 idea.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 12:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n43vkh$fbr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #78056 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 07/12/15 12:32, Richard Heathfield wrote: (snip) >> Removing assignments from all expressions would therefore require >> removing the assignment from this assignment expression, leaving us with >> a b; which is meaningless in C and would need to be replaced with >> memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof b); - hardly an improvement. > I don't think anyone is suggesting removing assignment entirely (it > could be done, of course - pure functional languages don't have > assignment of this sort. But that would be a completely different > language). For comparison purposes, Java has assignment expressions as statements, like C, but many non-assignment expressions aren't statements. You can't have a+b as a statement in Java. > But you could make a language that is very much like C, with the only > difference being that assignment is a statement and not an expression. > Then "a" is an expression, "b" is an expression, but "a = b" is a > statement - you could no longer write "a = b = c;" or "if (a = b)...". Also, Java removed the problem with while(a=b) and such in most cases by requiring that an if, while, or second for expression be boolean. That allows for while(a=b) only in the case where a and b are boolean. Personally, I do like the ability to use C's non-zero and non-null pointer expression in if, while, and for statements, but it isn't so bad in Java. One can get used to it fairly fast. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 11:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnr3iynisf.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #78070 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>>For comparison purposes, Java has assignment expressions as
>>statements.
>
> In Java, assignment expressions are not statements.
No, but as in C, adding a semicolon to an assignment expression makes
it a statement, specifically an ExpressionStatement. (Unlike C,
Java doesn't permit adding a semicolon to *any* expression to form
a statement, but an assignment is one of the subset of expressions
that can be used in an ExpressionStatement.)
If you're going to quibble about punctuation in a forum that may
not be familiar with the language you're discussing, it would be
helpful to mention what you're doing.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 01:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n45agc$mc8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #78122 |
In comp.lang.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes: >> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >>>For comparison purposes, Java has assignment expressions as >>>statements. >> In Java, assignment expressions are not statements. > No, but as in C, adding a semicolon to an assignment expression makes > it a statement, specifically an ExpressionStatement. (Unlike C, > Java doesn't permit adding a semicolon to *any* expression to form > a statement, but an assignment is one of the subset of expressions > that can be used in an ExpressionStatement.) Is that what he meant? No, I didn't figure that out. I thought it had something to do with the way it was defined in Java. Yes I know that in some languages semicolons are statement terminators and in others separators, in the former thay are part of the statement, in the latter they aren't. (See the differnnce in IF statements in Pascal and PL/I.) > If you're going to quibble about punctuation in a forum that may > not be familiar with the language you're discussing, it would be > helpful to mention what you're doing. Or even if they are, and just miss the point. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 09:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n443tq$8ae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78054 |
On 12/07/2015 06:32 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 07/12/15 11:13, BartC wrote: >> On 07/12/2015 02:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >>> By the way, presumably you don't take /all/ assignments out of /all/ >>> expressions, or you'd end up using memcpy a heck of a lot! >> >> In a language where 'a=b' doesn't return a value, then: >> >> a = b; >> >> is not an expression, but a statement. > > In C, however, which is the language we talk about in comp.lang.c, a is > an expression (actually a primary expression), b is an expression (also > a primary expression), and a = b is an expression (an assignment > expression). The semicolon terminates the statement, but does not render > the statement expressionless. > > Removing assignments from all expressions would therefore require > removing the assignment from this assignment expression, leaving us with > a b; which is meaningless in C and would need to be replaced with > memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof b); - hardly an improvement. I think this is entirely appropriate forum for discussion whether or not it was a good idea for C to take that approach to assignments, and that discussion can take the form of discussing a hypothetical C-like language where a=b is not an expression, so a=b; is not an expression-statement, but where a=b; is new grammatical entity called an assignment-statement. memcpy() would therefore not be needed. comp.std.c is a more appropriate place to discuss a serious proposal for such a change. It would, of course, be rejected by the committee as breaking too much existing code even if the committee were otherwise convinced of the merits of the proposal (which seems unlikely). But for a brand-new C-like language, I think the idea has some merit. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 15:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n444pt$bl6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78084 |
On 07/12/15 15:11, James Kuyper wrote: > On 12/07/2015 06:32 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 07/12/15 11:13, BartC wrote: >>> On 07/12/2015 02:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>>> By the way, presumably you don't take /all/ assignments out of /all/ >>>> expressions, or you'd end up using memcpy a heck of a lot! >>> >>> In a language where 'a=b' doesn't return a value, then: >>> >>> a = b; >>> >>> is not an expression, but a statement. >> >> In C, however, which is the language we talk about in comp.lang.c, a is >> an expression (actually a primary expression), b is an expression (also >> a primary expression), and a = b is an expression (an assignment >> expression). The semicolon terminates the statement, but does not render >> the statement expressionless. >> >> Removing assignments from all expressions would therefore require >> removing the assignment from this assignment expression, leaving us with >> a b; which is meaningless in C and would need to be replaced with >> memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof b); - hardly an improvement. > > I think this is entirely appropriate forum for discussion whether or not > it was a good idea for C to take that approach to assignments, and that > discussion can take the form of discussing a hypothetical C-like > language where a=b is not an expression, so a=b; is not an > expression-statement, but where a=b; is new grammatical entity called > an assignment-statement. memcpy() would therefore not be needed. > > comp.std.c is a more appropriate place to discuss a serious proposal for > such a change. It would, of course, be rejected by the committee as > breaking too much existing code even if the committee were otherwise > convinced of the merits of the proposal (which seems unlikely). > But for a brand-new C-like language, I think the idea has some merit. > There are several reasons for discussing what one might get if one were to tweak C in some way. One might hope to actually change the language - and then a discussion here is a good idea before trying comp.std.c (where a suggestion to change assignment from an expression to a statement would be rightly and immediately rejected). Another would be to consider a new C-like language, or extensions to a C compiler - c.l.c. is a fine place to start such discussions, but if they get too detailed or drift too far from C, then they become off-topic. Another would be to consider limited subsets of C for specific uses - and then the discussion is very much on-topic. And of course we can learn more about good or bad uses of a feature by comparing code with and without it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web