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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #26325

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

Show all headers | View raw

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> writes:
>>> [in]crement a toward b :)
>>>
>>> Heh. What it means is to step a by a unit step, same size as ++
>>> or -- (i.e. by 1), in the direction that brings the value of a
>>> closer to the value of b, or leaves a unchanged if a == b.
>>>
>>
>> If it ever came up this or some permutation would seem to work:
>>
>> x < y ? --y : (x > y ? ++y : y);
>
> A much more useful fictitious operator was recently discussed: the
> compare operator <>.  In terms of this, you'd just write
>
>   x += y <> x;

Perl has this operator, but spells it <=>.  It's commonly referred to as
the "spaceship operator".  It yields -1, 0, or 1 depending on whether
it's left operand is less than, equal to, or greater than its right
operand.  (If either operator is a NaN, it yields undef, a false scalar
value distinct from 0; C doesn't have such a thing.)

-- 
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