X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63 Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!nntpfeed.proxad.net!news.muarf.org!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Readability part I - code Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 16:45:22 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 44 Message-ID: <87pp69gvsd.fsf@kst-u.example.com> References: <87twvpaihi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87egmtlb3n.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <9a438218-b537-4212-9b82-a3616481ba27@googlegroups.com> <87zj5gi3y7.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <8dfc1d75-5a34-4380-bab8-a3fd7e1244ed@googlegroups.com> <873837hrl0.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <7134a864-252b-4e1d-b1d2-7a66359e34c6@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9be37d943435275679235b07c7947eef"; logging-data="18883"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wxA63KTqydK8ENqmLY7sl" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:jRHDl2CqSyqdKgSlOJurStsAh6E= sha1:31F30gsq/UqnbN+kWw/4M6pyo3Q= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:61812 David Kleinecke writes: > On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 11:06:27 AM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote: >> If you want to restrict yourself to C90 for some reason, that's fine, >> but it's not the current standard, and you can't expect the rest of us >> to read your mind or to ignore the more recent editions of the standard. >> You provided no basis for your statement that >> >> The "n++" should be ignored. >> >> And in fact there are no circumstances in which that's correct. In C90 >> (or in C11 with an implementation that doesn't support VLAs), the "n++" >> should not be ignored; it must be flagged as a constraint violation. In >> C99 or C11 with VLA support, it must be evaluated. >> >> If you want to discuss a version of the standard other than the current >> one, that's fine, but please let us know you're doing so. > > I have carefully always specified that I mean C90. And I will continue to > do so. You didn't mention C90 in the article in which you claimed (still incorrectly) that the "n++" should be ignored. I don't intend to keep track of who insists on assuming C90 and who doesn't, so I suggest mentioning it in each article in which it's relevant. > The standard says "The size is determined from the type of the > operand, which is not itself evaluated." I think that makes it > pretty clear that the n++ is not evaluated. No, *the standard* says that the operand is evaluated unless it's a VLA. Just so you know, I'm referring to the current C11 standard; C99 says the same thing. > I use (most of) C90 because I want simple readily understood > code. I see no reason for the mad rush to add features. I have absolutely no objection to your choice to stick with C90 (though I don't share your opinion). -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org 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"