Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad...

From	Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad...
Date	2015-12-30 20:01 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87r3i366zy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <n6063m$ccb$1@dont-email.me> <n60m14$lf$1@dont-email.me> <n60nkf$65m$1@dont-email.me> <87bn977v7v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n613e6$jca$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 30/12/15 17:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> 
>>> On 30/12/15 14:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>   int i = -6;
>>>>   unsigned int j = 42;
>>>>   if(i < j)
>>>>   {
>>>>     puts("-6 is less than 42");
>>>>   }
>> <snip>
>>> Of course, this in itself is just a specialist case of the difference
>>> between "normal" mathematics and numbers in C.  Replace the first two
>>> lines with "int16_t i = 1000000; int16_t j = 4000000;" and you'll find
>>> that four million is apparently smaller than one million.
>> 
>> You might find that, but you also might not!  There is a conversion
>> which is implementation-defined (and might even raise a signal).
>> 
>
> Absolutely - which is why you always have to be careful with arithmetic
> in C.

I'd just say "you have to be careful in C".  There's no arithmetic (in
the way I'd want to use the word) in "int16_t i = 1000000;".

-- 
Ben.

Thread

Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 20:31 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-12-29 21:20 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-29 23:13 +0100
    Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 22:19 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 09:56 +0100
        Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 13:28 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 14:55 +0100
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:32 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:17 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:01 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 15:48 +0000
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:35 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:19 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 17:39 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:26 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-12-30 18:32 +0100
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:55 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:15 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 22:00 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-31 10:16 +1300

csiph-web