Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Range-aware modulo operator -%
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:38:57 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <lnbm4zlahq.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <q040h4$bie$1@dont-email.me> <q057a5$1pr$1@dont-email.me> <rfrVD.120946$gU6.41087@fx33.iad> <q05lng$k1l$1@dont-email.me> <A9xVD.313699$_35.734@fx46.iad> <q0d7ja$tgl$1@dont-email.me> <bWsWD.95201$fy7.3260@fx35.am4> <q0dq6u$hqr$1@dont-email.me> <PwvWD.153560$ny2.49860@fx38.am4> <q0e1qc$t3p$1@dont-email.me> <9RxWD.81420$N45.2557@fx21.am4> <lnd0phmcjw.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <O2zWD.105221$MB6.51536@fx33.am4> <ln5zv9m5zd.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <ddIWD.65091$8Q1.45353@fx14.am4> <lny384kst5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <65TWD.67453$Ab5.11301@fx04.am4> <lnlg43ly2p.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <WUTWD.86605$lN1.12840@fx13.am4> <lnftublt9t.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <0tVWD.263283$DWh1.99504@fx36.am4>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4d2fb03eb8a6f1b5fb918b8f9f106071"; logging-data="12114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18n1UrcXbWbHpblLiVvAHPN"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f7T+ota7gnEQpPTAeTcvXAhG4wc= sha1:V3i6j0kNUDOSzPIWteFaaJ13+L4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:139356

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> There are several approaches to describing what is happening. The
> language reference necessary has to choose one. That doesn't mean it
> is the only possible one. (Think about that when next quoting chapter
> and verse.)

Sure.  Why would you not at least look at what the standard says before
making up your own description *that doesn't improve on what the
standard already says*?

> And if you take it literally, it means that:
>
>   if (a==b && c==d)
>
> needs to treated as though it was written as:
>
>   if ((a==b && c==d) != 0)
>
> Although this will work, it is also unnecessary. With my approach, the
> if-expression must be 0 or 1, and the result of && is already 0 or 1.

Of course it's unnecessary.  Read N1570 5.1.2.3p4, and feel free to take
it literally.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@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"