Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Path | csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5018AE22.152C@mindspring.com> (permalink) |
| Date | Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:18:42 -0400 |
| From | pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> |
| Reply-To | pfiland@mindspring.com |
| Organization | PF |
| X-Mailer | Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; I) |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? |
| References | <juiuqb$rau$1@speranza.aioe.org> <5011E247.1F7B@mindspring.com> <jut5td$fei$1@speranza.aioe.org> <5012954D.20C@mindspring.com> <juuk6k$fal$1@dont-email.me> <lnpq7g6bco.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <juv92v$i0n$1@dont-email.me> <te-dnWYbGZ2hqIvNnZ2dnUVZ8sCdnZ2d@lyse.net> <MPG.2a8225bcdb731a4798968a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Lines | 40 |
| X-Usenet-Provider | http://www.giganews.com |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 4.156.228.107 |
| X-Trace | sv3-kLprDB9TuU0J8eUqViebidzYIKSLVV+Mu4KDATyUgS+d7pXJlfAiw1UkgWkdiGAuQcRwihUIRZB/YE+!z1NsiJqalvUyXnmLB3UxmCjFW419np/FVNVUprvxPY+uV3NTcs7ftCTRnLJWTeQ81Ba7dB6rcudr!EQr5ID7j7wA= |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly |
| X-Postfilter | 1.3.40 |
| X-Original-Bytes | 2383 |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.c:24038 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Philip Lantz wrote:
>
> David Brown wrote:
> > Les Cargill wrote:
> > > Keith Thompson wrote:
> > >> Les Cargill writes:
> > >>> Type conversions must be made explicit.
> > >>
> > >> I presume that's meant as advice, not a language rule.
> > >
> > > Sorry - yes, it's advice.
> >
> > Good advice.
> >
> > For my work, it is more than advice - it is a style rule,
> > and I enforce
> > it with compiler warnings (-Wconversion -Wsign-conversion in gcc).
>
> Do you really? Would you use casts in situations like these?
> 1. char c = 'x';
> 2. int *p = malloc(N * sizeof *p);
> 3. free(p);
> 4. printf("%c\n", c);
> 5. while (*s != '\0')
> n = n * 10 + (*s - '0');
>
> I would find them to be undesirable clutter.
I was thinking the same thing.
And I think you meant to imply
that (*s) is an expression of type char.
If n is of type int and also not negative,
then you could write without having to use parentheses
n = n * 10 - '0' + *s;
with no possibility of overflow.
--
pete
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-23 01:32 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-23 01:45 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 00:19 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-24 11:25 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 16:22 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-25 01:53 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 21:43 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-24 16:29 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 21:53 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-24 23:24 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 01:12 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-07-23 10:37 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Andre <lodwig@pathme.de> - 2012-07-23 11:46 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-23 11:33 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-23 23:48 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-24 10:43 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-24 02:58 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-24 12:04 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-24 05:32 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-24 14:20 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-24 18:41 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-24 12:37 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 16:15 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 16:05 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-24 23:28 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 01:13 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-25 01:26 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 05:43 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-24 15:10 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 16:23 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-24 23:40 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 01:32 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-25 01:29 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 05:45 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-25 12:35 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-26 00:12 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-26 01:42 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-25 09:31 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 06:28 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-25 16:28 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-25 17:17 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-26 12:07 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-26 14:06 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-07-26 09:45 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-30 09:01 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-26 00:09 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-26 00:52 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-07-26 20:35 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-26 22:35 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-07-27 09:19 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-07-27 12:51 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-27 16:19 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-07-27 18:47 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-30 09:10 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-07-31 17:26 -1000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-08-01 00:18 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-08-01 10:19 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-01 10:09 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-01 12:51 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-08-01 08:18 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-01 14:22 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-08-01 09:57 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-08-01 11:35 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-09-08 10:13 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-09-22 23:39 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-09-22 23:45 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 13:52 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 13:45 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 19:51 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-12-28 11:11 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-29 11:31 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-29 23:59 +0000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-02 10:01 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2013-01-02 13:07 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-03 12:10 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-01-05 12:26 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-09-22 23:35 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 14:02 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-01 10:06 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-01 12:46 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-08-02 08:19 -1000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-08-02 08:17 -1000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-03 08:04 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-27 22:27 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-28 01:31 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-28 10:52 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-28 03:31 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-07-28 00:05 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-07-27 23:22 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-27 22:35 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-04 08:43 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-04 16:40 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-04 22:58 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-04 23:10 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-05 01:16 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-05 02:25 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-05 03:35 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-05 12:16 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-05 19:56 +0000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-06 01:12 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-06 01:07 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-05 13:33 +0000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-06 01:13 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-04 22:54 -0600
csiph-web