Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Precedence Misunderstanding |
| Date | 2012-07-19 22:02 +0000 |
| Organization | Stack Usenet News Service |
| Message-ID | <slrnk0h0vb.r5q.willem@toad.stack.nl> (permalink) |
| References | <ju2p36$qj9$1@dont-email.me> <874np7j8br.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org> <ju4ba5$lso$1@dont-email.me> <slrnk0bjai.1frm.willem@toad.stack.nl> <87d33ry6u0.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
Phil Carmody wrote:
) Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> writes:
)> This is, step by step, what the program will do:
)>
)> /* Construct for the expression a && b || c || d && x && y || z */
)> int abcdxyz(int a, int b, int c, int d, int x, int y, int z)
)> {
)> if (a) {
)> if (b) {
)> return 1;
)> }
)> }
)> if (c) {
)> return 1;
)> }
)> if (d) {
)> if (x) {
)> if (y) {
)> return 1;
)> }
)> }
)> }
)> if (z) {
)> return 1;
)> }
)> return 0;
)> }
)>
)> Now, as you can see: a, b, c, d, x, y, z are evaluated in that order.
)
) It's possible to evaluate c when you've not evaluated b. There may be
) a weak ordering, but I'm not sure a non-mathematical reading would
) include that as an interpretation.
Yes, I wrote that piece of code to demonstrate exactly what will
happen, precisely because english wording tends to be so ambiguous.
You can either try to precisify the wording, or you can write in code.
)> Suppose that '&&' had higher precedence, it would become the following:
)
) s/&&/||/
Good catch. Or s/higher/lower/, of course.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Precedence Misunderstanding Charles Richmond <frizzle@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-07-16 23:18 -0500
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-16 21:54 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-16 22:13 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-16 22:36 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-17 13:57 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-07-17 13:35 -0500
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-07-17 20:48 +0200
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-17 13:45 -0500
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-17 12:27 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-07-17 20:20 +0000
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-17 20:34 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-17 12:39 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-17 20:57 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-17 20:48 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-07-17 21:12 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-18 07:14 +0000
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-18 10:11 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-18 09:18 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 18:10 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-18 18:27 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 18:53 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-18 21:07 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-19 20:47 +0300
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-07-18 23:54 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-19 07:21 +0000
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-17 20:42 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-07-17 20:38 +0000
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-19 20:54 +0300
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-07-19 22:02 +0000
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-07-17 22:31 -0400
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-18 00:35 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-17 22:16 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-17 14:22 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 16:35 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 18:32 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-18 10:45 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 19:29 +0100
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-18 13:26 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-19 00:51 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-19 00:11 -0700
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-17 00:05 -0500
Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-17 07:40 +0000
csiph-web