Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2022 09:38:18 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <86ee269pqd.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <t28g93$cou$1@dont-email.me> <t298jp$duj$1@dont-email.me> <t29ej1$5dk$1@dont-email.me> <t29mij$1bk8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t29q1c$hf1$1@dont-email.me> <t29qms$18lf$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t1tg4hdokpjqagckllag4839rkn9ssag4a@4ax.com> <t2e9qb$q6l$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t2efo4$jqc$1@dont-email.me> <t2f03t$kt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t2f420$q7p$1@dont-email.me> <t2hmk6$1nno$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t2hnnm$c47$1@dont-email.me> <t2hon3$rje$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t2kncv$ite$1@dont-email.me> <t2l10e$1h9d$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2eba800a-d920-4f60-abed-4c687a971a67n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b8e2dcfc2935dcfe9151ae6ef6f0e059"; logging-data="10326"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GUx0fu1J+saj6iVqcBunhr2AGNq68R0I="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7A2vMGqJVYspQ/f5covIw82j8yk= sha1:w5Grx9vSWYf1HX4EiIqmmmpAyAI=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:83548

Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:

> On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 00:34:23 UTC+3, Sams Lara wrote:
>
>> On 06/04/2022 19:50, James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>>> If you think that the first ++i must be evaluated before the
>>> second ++i, just because it's "defined first", then you've made
>>> the mistake that people have been accusing you of.
>>
>> Perhaps the accusation may not be justified because there are times
>> you want to know that the order will be preserved.  For example, if
>> you have a function like so:
>>
>> string BinaryString(int Number)
>> {
>>     if (Number == 0)
>>     {
>>         return "0";
>>     }
>
> Note that else after if that returns or throws is  superfluous:
>
>>     else
>>         if (Number == 1)
>>         {
>>             return "1";
>>         }
>
> Here too excessive else:
>
>>         else
>>         {
>>             return (BinaryString(Number / 2) + BinaryString(Number % 2));
>>         }
>
> Unreachable return.  Would be obvious without redundant elses:

Better to get rid of all those pesky if() statements and just use
one return (disclaimer: not compiled):

    string
    BinaryString( const int N ){
        return
             N == 0  ?  "0"
          :  N == 1  ?  "1"
          :  BinaryString( N *1u /2 ) + BinaryString( N *1u %2 );
    }

(Note:  the 1u factors in the last line are there to avoid a
nasty bug when N is negative.)