Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #26141

Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better?

Show key headers only | View raw

Tim Rentsch wrote:
> 
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> 
> > Philip Lantz wrote:
> >> [..snip..snip..]
> >>
> >> Do you really? Would you use casts in situations like these?
> >>   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.
> 
> Is there some reason you wouldn't write
> 
>     n = *s-'0' + n*10;   /* or add more spacing, if preferred */
> 
> ?


Not any good reason.

I have an aesthetic preference 
for writing the more strongly associated arithmetic operators first.

-- 
pete

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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