Re: is the < operator transitive?

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: is the < operator transitive?
Date	2011-10-07 16:49 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<lnaa9cwef1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink)
References	<4e8f3298$0$23280$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <j6nhku$s34$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lnehyowpuc.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <j6nn3r$a73$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Python comparisons have the cool feature, that a<b<c is the same as
>>> (a<b && b<c). So you can use normal notation for multiple comparisons.
>>>
>>> IMO it would be great if this could be backported to C.
>> 
>> The trouble is that ``a < b < c'' already has a meaning in C, so it
>> would be an incompatible chnage.
>> 
>> Just as ``a + b + c'' is equivalent to ``(a + b) + c'' ``a < b < c'' is
>> equivalent to ``(a < b) < c''.  In other words, it evaluates ``(a <b)'',
>> which yields a value of 0 or 1, and compares that value to c.
>
> This is just my point, Keith.
>
> I find it hard to believe theres much existing code that deliberately 
> uses this unintuitive interpretation. However it must be a cause of many 
> bugs!

The point is that it could *potentially* break existing code, and the
committee is justifiably hesitant to make language changes that do that.

But you may well be right that it would fix more code than it would
break.

Another idea might be to *forbid* expressions like a < b < c.  This
could still break existing code, but wouldn't quietly give it a new
meaning.

Some compilers in effect already do this, by issuing a warning.  gcc,
for example, warns "comparisons like ‘X<=Y<=Z’ do not have their
mathematical meaning".

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

Thread

is the < operator transitive? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 19:10 +0200
  Re: is the < operator transitive? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-07 13:44 -0500
  Re: is the < operator transitive? Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 18:50 +0000
    Re: is the < operator transitive? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-07 12:42 -0700
      Re: is the < operator transitive? Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 20:23 +0000
        Re: is the < operator transitive? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-07 14:29 -0700
        Re: is the < operator transitive? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-07 16:49 -0700
          Re: is the < operator transitive? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-07 19:19 -0700
        Re: is the < operator transitive? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-10-08 09:57 -0400
    Re: is the < operator transitive? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-10-08 13:17 +0100
      Re: is the < operator transitive? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-10-08 06:06 -0700
        Re: is the < operator transitive? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-10-08 14:48 +0100
          Re: is the < operator transitive? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-10-08 07:18 -0700
          Re: is the < operator transitive? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-10-08 15:19 +0100
  Re: is the < operator transitive? Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 18:50 +0000
    Re: is the < operator transitive? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-10-07 21:23 +0200
      Re: is the < operator transitive? Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 20:24 +0000
        Re: is the < operator transitive? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-07 16:40 -0400
          Re: is the < operator transitive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-07 23:12 +0100
            Re: is the < operator transitive? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 15:28 -0700
              Re: is the < operator transitive? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 15:31 -0700
              Re: is the < operator transitive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-07 23:36 +0100
                Re: is the < operator transitive? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-07 16:18 -0700
                Re: is the < operator transitive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-08 10:32 +0100
            Re: is the < operator transitive? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-07 18:30 -0400
              Re: is the < operator transitive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-08 00:21 +0100
                Re: is the < operator transitive? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-07 21:33 -0400
                Re: is the < operator transitive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-08 10:45 +0100
                Re: is the < operator transitive? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-08 14:02 -0400
                Re: is the < operator transitive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-08 21:49 +0100
                Re: is the < operator transitive? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-08 17:17 -0400
                Re: is the < operator transitive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-08 22:59 +0100
                Re: is the < operator transitive? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-08 21:33 -0400
                Re: is the < operator transitive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-09 09:09 +0100
                Re: is the < operator transitive? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-09 07:00 -0400
                Re: is the < operator transitive? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-10-09 01:12 +0100
                Re: is the < operator transitive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-09 08:55 +0100
            Re: is the < operator transitive? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-07 18:16 -0500
              Re: is the < operator transitive? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-10-18 02:03 -0400
                Re: is the < operator transitive? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-20 18:03 -0500
        Re: is the < operator transitive? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-07 16:50 -0700
    Re: is the < operator transitive? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-09 11:00 +0200
      Re: is the < operator transitive? Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-10-09 09:42 +0000
        Re: is the < operator transitive? Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-10-09 12:20 +0000
          Re: is the < operator transitive? Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-10-09 12:40 +0000
            Re: is the < operator transitive? Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-10-09 12:54 +0000
              Re: is the < operator transitive? Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-10-09 13:04 +0000
            Re: is the < operator transitive? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-10-09 15:34 +0100
              Re: is the < operator transitive? Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-10-09 15:08 +0000
            Re: is the < operator transitive? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-09 12:14 -0500
  Re: is the < operator transitive? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-07 15:36 -0400
    Re: is the < operator transitive? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-10-07 20:00 -0400
      Re: is the < operator transitive? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-07 21:38 -0400
      Re: is the < operator transitive? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-10-09 21:40 +0200
        Re: is the < operator transitive? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-10-09 16:34 -0400
          Re: is the < operator transitive? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-10-11 14:08 +0200
          Re: is the < operator transitive? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 16:14 -0800

csiph-web