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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #26334

Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea?

Show all headers | View raw

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> בתאריך יום רביעי, 12 בספטמבר 2012 18:43:10 UTC+1, מאת Edward A. Falk:
>> In article <20120911115303.248@kylheku.com>,
>> (Although I wouldn't mind built-in abs(), min(), and max() functions,
>> I admit it's too late for even those.)
>> 
> You could have |x| syntax. That would look a bit more mathematical. 

I doubt that it would be possible to add that syntax without
conflicting with the existing "|" and "||" operators.  I'm nearly
certain that it would, at the very least, cause confusion.

There's no reason you couldn't add new operators whose symbols happen
to be keywords.  "sizeof", at least when applied to an expression,
is a unary operator like "-", "~", or "!".

For example, a "min" operator might have the syntax `x min y`.
To apply it to multiple values, just write `x min y min z`, which
would be equivalent to `(x min y) min z`.  "abs" could be a unary
operator rather than a built-in function; in that case, both `abs x`
and `abs(x)` would be valid.

Presumably the new keywords would have to be something like _Abs,
_Min, and _Max, with a new header defining appropriate macros.

I'm not necessarily saying these *should* be added to the language,
just speculating about a way it could be done.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

Thread

New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-10 12:48 -0700
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-09-11 14:27 -0400
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-11 16:53 -0700
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-11 19:24 +0000
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-09-11 15:56 -0400
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-11 14:15 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 15:56 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-12 00:56 -0700
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-12 10:55 +0100
            Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-09-13 07:47 +0200
              Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-13 10:47 +0100
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 15:25 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-12 09:39 +0200
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 08:33 -0700
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-13 09:53 +0200
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2012-09-12 17:43 +0000
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 15:35 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-13 06:34 +0000
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-13 11:47 +0100
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-13 23:52 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-14 07:53 +0000
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-14 11:46 +0100
            Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-14 13:17 +0000
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 11:35 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-14 02:04 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-14 21:11 +0000
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-09-14 11:39 -0700
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-11 22:32 +0100
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-11 15:19 -0700
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? gordonb.22y0w@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2012-09-11 17:27 -0500
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 18:51 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-12 10:49 +0100
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-09-12 23:23 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-13 12:08 +0100
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-13 15:20 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? gordonb.h093l@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2012-09-14 15:13 -0500
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 20:38 +0100

csiph-web