Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!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: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:51:00 -0600
Message-ID: <50CFBDF9.39F5@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:51:05 -0500
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> <5018AE22.152C@mindspring.com> <kfn1uidisi3.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <504B529D.35AA@mindspring.com> <MPG.2ac84e9a3020d2b89896c6@news.eternal-september.org> <kfnhankgxnz.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 64
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.156.228.63
X-Trace: sv3-hHf7ocHFC/59oVlmzPTMqmlRGTSwGC+g4GMexRkH6xsmmGjaEt+EbfHhI6t9m1Nqnw1Il9+7Qhon2bm!XftY47GJ3r3flJjI7p2VdhO2duggTenOi2UmNFrKi+HjNQVxQw1GbyUkc/jX5xInLAIrkF7Cu5B/!crnA3XOdpw==
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: 3544
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:29451

Tim Rentsch wrote:
> 
> Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> writes:
> 
> > pete wrote:
> >> Tim Rentsch wrote:
> >> > pete writes:
> >> > > Philip Lantz wrote:
> >> > >> [..snip..snip..]
> >> > >>
> >> > >>   5. while (*s != '\0')
> >> > >>          n = n * 10 + (*s - '0');
> >> > >>
> >> > > 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.
> >
> > I think aesthetics *is* a good reason
> > for writing code a certain way.
> > [snip elaboration]
> 
> Sure, but not the only one.  In writing, for example, it is my
> preference not to split an infinitive. 

My preference is to not split an infinitive.
No, wait ..., I told that wrong ;)

> Sometimes, though, it's
> awkward to just blindly follow that rule.  In the particular
> case here (ie, in assigning to n), IMO there is very little
> difference aesthetically between the two writings, and the
> second one even might be a little easier to digest when reading
> it.  Partly I was curious how much of the choice was an actual
> conscious process and how much was doing things a particular way
> just because that's the way the author is used to doing them.

I frequently imagine a processor with an accumulator
and I write the values in the order that I imagine them being accessed.

But sometimes, I'll write something like
    digit = n - 10 * tenth;
even though
    digit = tenth * -10 + n;
fits that rule better,
just because I prefer the looks of
    digit = n - 10 * tenth;
and then I have to say "I don't really know why".

-- 
pete